Re: I Am A "Climate Denier" There Are Too Many "Climate Deniers"..

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 1, 2013, 6:18:20 PM4/1/13

to

On 4/1/2013 12:14 PM, faulty sham sniveled impotently because:
>
> On Apr 1, 9:04 am, Man of Mind was berating the ignorance exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/1/2013 7:55 AM, bleatus whimpered and groveled for:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was amused by the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2013 7:12 AM, bleatus whimpered and groveled for:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind noted the lack of comprehension, on the behalf of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/31/2013 9:09 PM, bleatus whimpered and groveled for:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was castigating the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2013 5:53 PM, David Hartung knee-jerked when:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 03/31/2013 01:33 PM, joecoo...@hotmail.com wrote:
..........
>>>>>>>>>> AND OVER 90% OF THE WORLD'S CLIMATOLOGISTS AND RELATED
>>>>>>>>>> DISCIPLINES ALL AGREE THAT ACTIVITIES BY MAN ARE PART OF
>>>>>>>>>> THE REASON FOR THIS OBSERVED FACT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I often see this claim, but never any sort of support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you simply ignore supporting cites because you can't
>>>>>>>> actually understand the objective analysis that goes into
>>>>>>>> such studies, so addicted to unreliable beliefs you are..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki#By_Myth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only deluded, gullible idiots
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like yourself resorting to false generalization, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes no sense whatsoever
>>>>
>>>> To you, that is..
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should learn some critical thinking skills?
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL! You don't even know what "critical thinking skills" are!
>>
>> How much would you like to wager on that, bleatus?
>
> Hey Kurt

Who?

> can you give one example where you successfully used your
> "critical thinking skills"?

Easily, faulty sham.. Let's start with Muffette's challenge,
you know, the one he didn't pay up afterwards..
>
> "%%%% Shall we say $5,000?"
>
> "%%%% The college sais they never heard of you."
>
> "%%%% I saw a generic BS degree with someone elses name on it"
>
> "%%%% It was an easy bet since you do not have
> and never will be asble to produce a physics degree."
>
> "%%%% Show us your wrong answer again!"
>
> "%%%% It is quite apparent you cannot read since you got
> the answer wrong."
>
> "%%%% I know my 12 year old grandkid is smarter than you"
>
> "%%%% AMAZING! You got it wrong 20 times until you saw the
> answer given by others!
>
> "%%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet
> per second/per second and the ball was traveling at 1,000
> feet per second.
>
> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?
> ----> 1,000 feet
>
> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
> ----> 1 second.?

Nope..

Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..

32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2

Dividing the 16 out of the right side..

32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..

I gave you a chance to check your answer several times over..

--
"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 2:39:48 PM4/2/13

to

On Apr 1, 5:19 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/2013 12:14 PM, faulty sham sniveled impotently because:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 9:04 am, Man of Mind was berating the ignorance exhibited by:
>
> >> On 4/1/2013 7:55 AM, bleatus whimpered and groveled for:
>
> >>> Man of Mind was amused by the ambitious ignorance of:
>
> >>>> On 4/1/2013 7:12 AM, bleatus whimpered and groveled for:
>
> >>>>> Man of Mind noted the lack of comprehension, on the behalf of:
>
> >>>>>> On 3/31/2013 9:09 PM, bleatus whimpered and groveled for:
>
> >>>>>>> Man of Mind was castigating the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/31/2013 5:53 PM, David Hartung knee-jerked when:
>

Since you didn't post the original problem, I can't verify that your
answer is correct.

Lee L. Curtis

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 3:46:00 PM4/2/13

to

LOL! He's displaying his lack of "critical thinking skills"!!!

>
>
> >
> > --
> > "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
> > "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
> > "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

--
...llc

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 4:06:05 PM4/2/13

to

On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently because:
>
> On Apr 1, 5:19 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy of:

>>
>> On 4/1/2013 12:14 PM, faulty sham sniveled impotently because:
>>>
>>> On Apr 1, 9:04 am, Man of Mind was berating the ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2013 7:55 AM, bleatus whimpered and groveled for:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was amused by the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/1/2013 7:12 AM, bleatus whimpered and groveled for:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind noted the lack of comprehension, on the behalf of:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2013 9:09 PM, bleatus whimpered and groveled:
.........

So, you can't figure the initial conditions from the
way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh? *>LOL!<*

> I can't verify that your answer is correct.

You can't do even the simplest physics problems, faulty sham,
just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
rather amusingly..

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 4:27:07 PM4/2/13

to

On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently because:
>
>

ss

> >>> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?
> >>> ----> 1,000 feet
>
> >>> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
> >>> ----> 1 second.?
>
> >> Nope..
>
> >> Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..
>
> >> 32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2

Did you write that equation? Then perhaps you can explain why you have
both s^2 and t^2 in it on the same side?

>
> >> Dividing the 16 out of the right side..
>

Couldn't help but notice you didn't include all your units, something
you accuse others of...

> >> 32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..
>
> >> I gave you a chance to check your answer several times over..
>
> > Since you didn't post the original problem,
>
> So, you can't figure the initial conditions

No, since there is not enough information. Perhaps you can post the
original problem?

> from the
> way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh?

It has not yet been established that he got the wrong answer. Sorry, I
can't just take your word for it; you have an unfortunate history of
accusing others of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.

> *>LOL!<*
>
> > I can't verify that your answer is correct.
>
> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, faulty sham,

You actually have to *provide* the problem before I can solve it,
Kurt.

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 6:53:50 PM4/2/13

to

On 4/2/2013 3:27 PM, faulty sham continued whimpering at:

>
> On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently because:
>>>

>>> On Apr 1, 5:19 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy of:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2013 12:14 PM, faulty sham sniveled impotently because:

.....

>>>>> can you give one example where you successfully used your
>>>>> "critical thinking skills"?
>>>>
>>>> Easily, faulty sham.. Let's start with Muffette's challenge,
>>>> you know, the one he didn't pay up afterwards..
>>>>>
>>>>> "%%%% Shall we say $5,000?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "%%%% The college sais they never heard of you."
>>>>>
>>>>> "%%%% I saw a generic BS degree with someone elses name on it"
>>>>>
>>>>> "%%%% It was an easy bet since you do not have
>>>>> and never will be asble to produce a physics degree."
>>>>>
>>>>> "%%%% Show us your wrong answer again!"
>>>>>
>>>>> "%%%% It is quite apparent you cannot read since you got
>>>>> the answer wrong."
>>>>>
>>>>> "%%%% I know my 12 year old grandkid is smarter than you"
>>>>>
>>>>> "%%%% AMAZING! You got it wrong 20 times until you saw the
>>>>> answer given by others!
>>>>>
>>>>> "%%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet
>>>>> per second/per second and the ball was traveling at 1,000
>>>>> feet per second.
>>>>>

>>>>> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?
>>>>> ----> 1,000 feet
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
>>>>> ----> 1 second.?
>>>>
>>>> Nope..
>>>>
>>>> Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..
>>>>
>>>> 32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2
>
> Did you write that equation?

Did I stutter?

> Then perhaps you can explain why you have both s^2
> and t^2 in it on the same side?

You don't see how the untis cancel out, still? *>LOL!<*

>>>> Dividing the 16 out of the right side..
>
> Couldn't help but notice you didn't include all your units,

That's okay, you never could seem to understand that anyways,
and Muffette was about as adequate to the task as yourself..

>>>> 32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..
>>>>
>>>> I gave you a chance to check your answer several times over..
>>>
>>> Since you didn't post the original problem,
>>

>> So, you can't figure the initial conditions from the
>> way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh? *>LOL!<*
>
> No,

Here, let me give you a couple of hints:

"%%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet
per second/per second and the ball was traveling at 1,000
feet per second."

...

(2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
----> 1 second.?

Try to figure this out on your own, just this once..

>>> I can't verify that your answer is correct.
>>
>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, faulty sham,

>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>> rather amusingly..
>

> It has not yet been established that he got the wrong answer

Yes, it has..

Lee L. Curtis

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 11:16:26 PM4/2/13

to

Salty Stan wrote:

> On Apr 2, 4:06�pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently because:
> >
> >
> ss
>
> > >>> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?
> > >>> � � ----> 1,000 feet
> >
> > >>> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
> > >>> � � ----> 1 second.?
> >
> > >> Nope..
> >
> > >> Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..
> >
> > >> 32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2
>
> Did you write that equation? Then perhaps you can explain why you have
> both s^2 and t^2 in it on the same side?

Because he doesn't know what he's talking about?

> >
> > >> Dividing the 16 out of the right side..
> >
> Couldn't help but notice you didn't include all your units, something
> you accuse others of...
>
> > >> 32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..
> >
> > >> I gave you a chance to check your answer several times over..
> >
> > > Since you didn't post the original problem,
> >
> > So, you can't figure the initial conditions
>
> No, since there is not enough information. Perhaps you can post the
> original problem?
>
> > from the
> > way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh?
>
> It has not yet been established that he got the wrong answer. Sorry, I
> can't just take your word for it; you have an unfortunate history of
> accusing others of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.

Is that so? Well, now that's interesting!

>
> > *>LOL!<*
> >
> > > I can't verify that your answer is correct.
> >
> > You can't do even the simplest physics problems, faulty sham,

Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for Kurt? Why do you guys have
all these secret names?

>
> You actually have to provide the problem before I can solve it,
> Kurt.

LOL! Good one!!!

>
>
> > just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
> > rather amusingly..
> >
> > --
> > "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
> > "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
> > "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

--
...llc

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 11:40:44 PM4/2/13

to

On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:
>>
>> On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, Man of Mind was laughing at the blather from:

>>>
>>> On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently because:

....

>>>> Since you didn't post the original problem,
>>>

>>> So, you can't figure the initial conditions from the

>>> way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh?
>>
>> It has not yet been established that he got the wrong answer

Yes, it has..

>> you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
>> of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
>
> Is that so?

Nope, but you, on the other hand..

"the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."

> Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for

Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

*>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...

You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,

just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away

rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
from the subject of global warming and climatology..

Lee L. Curtis

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 8:02:08 AM4/3/13

to

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:
> >
> >faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:
> > >
> > > On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, Man of Mind was laughing at the blather from:
> > > >
> > > > On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently
> > > > because:
> ....
> > > > > Since you didn't post the original problem,
> > > >
> > > > So, you can't figure the initial conditions from the
> > > > way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh?
> > >
> > > It has not yet been established that he got the wrong answer
>
> Yes, it has..
>
> > > you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
> > > of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
> >
> > Is that so?

How interesting. So what kind of problem stump you, idiot boy?

>
> Nope, but you, on the other hand..
>
> "the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
> And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."

What are you blathering about idiot boy?

>
> > Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for
>
> Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?

...again that makes no sense, idiot boy.

>
> "Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
> Carbon Dioxide too!

Must have struck a nerve there, or you wouldn't keep repeating that.

It must be embarrassing for you to be exposed like that.

>
> *>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...

sure is.

Like your term "untis"...now exactly what is an "untis"?

Huh? Go ahead, let's hear it!

>
> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
> from the subject of global warming and climatology..

So exactly what is an "untis"?

--
...llc

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 8:42:04 AM4/3/13

to

On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>
>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>
>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, Man of Mind was laughing at the blather from:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently because:

......

>>>>>> Since you didn't post the original problem,
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you can't figure the initial conditions from the
>>>>> way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh?
>>>>
>>>> It has not yet been established that he got the wrong answer
>>
>> Yes, it has..
>>
>>>> you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
>>>> of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
>>>
>>> Is that so?
>>

>> Nope, but you, on the other hand..
>>
>> "the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
>> And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."
>>

>>> Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for
>>
>> Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?
>>

>> "Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
>> Carbon Dioxide too!"
>>

>> *>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...
>>

>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>

> So what kind of problem stump you

*>LOL!<*

That's a keeper, idiot boy..

--

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

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

Lee L. Curtis

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 9:08:44 AM4/3/13

to

You didn't answer the question

Like your term "untis"...now exactly what is an "untis"?

Huh? Go ahead, let's hear it!

Why do you keep running away? Hmmmmm

--
...llc

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 11:58:34 AM4/3/13

to

On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>
>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>>
>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:

......

>>>>>> you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
>>>>>> of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that so?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, but you, on the other hand..
>>>>
>>>> "the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
>>>> And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."
>>>>
>>>>> Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for
>>>>
>>>> Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?
>>>>
>>>> "Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
>>>> Carbon Dioxide too!"
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...
>>>>
>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
>>>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>>>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
>>>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>>>
>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>>
>> *>LOL!<*
>>
>> That's a keeper, idiot boy..
>
> You didn't answer the question

Why are you so proud of your deliberate ignorance?

--

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 9:08:45 PM4/3/13

to

On 4/2/2013 5:53 PM, Man of Mind was chiding the ignorance expressed by:

>
> On 4/2/2013 3:27 PM, faulty sham continued whimpering at:
>>

>> On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance expressed by:

>>>
>>> On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently because:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 1, 5:19 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/1/2013 12:14 PM, faulty sham sniveled impotently because:

......

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>> Dividing the 16 out of the right side..
>>
>> Couldn't help but notice you didn't include all your units,
>
> That's okay, you never could seem to understand that anyways,
> and Muffette was about as adequate to the task as yourself..

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>> 32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..
>>>>>
>>>>> I gave you a chance to check your answer several times over..
>>>>
>>>> Since you didn't post the original problem,
>>>
>>> So, you can't figure the initial conditions from the
>>> way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh? *>LOL!<*
>>
>> No,
>
> Here, let me give you a couple of hints:
>
> "%%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet
> per second/per second and the ball was traveling at 1,000
> feet per second."
> ...
> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
> ----> 1 second.?
>
> Try to figure this out on your own, just this once..

"Ever get an answer to that?" *>chuckling<*

--
"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"0

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 5, 2013, 9:21:56 AM4/5/13

to

On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <clee...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
>
>
> > faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:

Kurt why don't you just do this?

1) Post Moffit's original problem
2) Post his answer
3) Post your answer.

That shouldn't be too hard, right? I'm betting that even you are able
to do that.

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 5, 2013, 10:31:05 AM4/5/13

to

On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>
> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>
>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>

>>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:

........

>>>>>>>> you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
>>>>>>>> of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, but you, on the other hand..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
>>>>>> And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
>>>>>> Carbon Dioxide too!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
>>>>>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>>>>>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
>>>>>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>>>>>

>>>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>>>>

>>>> *>LOL!<*
>>>>

>>>> That's a keeper, idiot boy..
>>>
>>> You didn't answer the question
>>
>> Why are you so proud of your deliberate ignorance?
>

> why don't you just do this?
>
> 1) Post Moffit's original problem

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/030b6cd635998e94?hl=en&dmode=source

You place a cannon on a hill top with an elevation of 32 feet. It fires
a cannon ball perfectly horizontal at 1,000 feet per second and the
cannon ball has no drag.

(1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?

(2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?

> 2) Post his answer

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/5d3a905216989cbf?hl=en&dmode=source

%%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet per second/per
second and the ball was traveling at 1,000 feet per second.

(1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground? ----> 1,000
feet

(2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground? ----> 1
second.

A simple 6th grade math problem!

> 3) Post your answer.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/483d969d962c46f7?hl=en&dmode=source

*>snurck!<* You're wrong, Dufus.. t=1.414 seconds..

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b204b512c6d820c9?hl=en&dmode=source

Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..

32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2

Dividing the 16 out of the right side..

32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..

I gave you a chance to check your answer several times over..

> That shouldn't be too hard,

It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..

When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?

--

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

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

to

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud wrote:
> >
> > Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
> > >

> >>-

I don't have a strong opinion on GW. Let's do some more physics
problems!

Here we go, can you solve this one Kurt?

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 9:01:52 AM4/7/13

to

On Apr 6, 7:03 pm, untis boy <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud wrote:
>

ss

>
> >> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>
> >> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
> >> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
> >> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
> >> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>
> > Oh, are we doing physics problems
>

The problem you presented is probably beyond Kurt's ability. I predict
he'll snip it and run away from it.

> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>

See? Told ya.

Perhaps you should try something simpler?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 9:13:57 AM4/7/13

to

On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>
>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>

>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

......

> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.

Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..

> Let's do some more physics problems!

Okay..

What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
of 1.0 centimeter from each other?

Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?

Put your answers right here---> _______________

--
"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 9:35:03 AM4/7/13

to

On 4/7/2013 8:01 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>
> On Apr 6, 7:03 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:

>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> whined:

..........
>>>>>>>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, flea
>>>>>>>>>> circus, just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives

>>>>>>>>>> you away rather amusingly, especially when you started
>>>>>>>>>> running away from the subject of global warming and
>>>>>>>>>> climatology..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *>LOL!<*
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That's a keeper, flea circus..

>>>> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>>>>
>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>
>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>
> The problem you presented is probably

It's in several of my physics textbooks..

> Perhaps you should try something simpler?

Perhaps you couldn't address my counter-arguments as
regards your sock-puppet's claims about global warming?

Let's run by that one more time, and see if you've got
anything more to add to this particular subject, before
you run away again whimpering about 'psychics problems'..

On 4/1/2013 10:43 PM, Dr. Jive Macaroni writhed in denials:
>

Well? You going to answer any of that?

--
"Kurt, why do you evading these questions?"

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

Slackjaw

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 4:00:50 PM4/7/13

to

Man of Mind wrote:

-

> > > Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>
> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..

Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.

>
> > Let's do some more physics problems!
>
> Okay..
>
> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>
> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>
> Put your answers right here---> _______________

I don't know, I don't have a degree in physics. Do you? Perhaps you can
solve my problem.

Can you?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 4:16:59 PM4/7/13

to

On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>
> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:

>>
>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

.......

>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>
>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>
>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>
> Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.

*>LOL!<* Translation: Run Away!..

>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>
>> Okay..
>>
>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>
> I don't know, I don't have a degree in physics

Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..

One of us got his degree in physics, and you've admitted
that it wasn't you, nor any of your sock-puppets..

--

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

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

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

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

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

"when you've been beated in an argument, or had some of your
errors corrected in public, the best thing to do to admit your
mistake and move on."

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 4:25:58 PM4/7/13

to

On 4/7/2013 3:15 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled with:
>
> On Apr 7, 4:00 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>
>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:

>>>
>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

.........

>>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>>
>>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>
>> Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.

So, in other words, you didn't read any om my cites
after requesting them so you could verify the answers..

>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>
>>> Okay..
>>>
>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>
>> I don't know, I don't have a degree in physics
>

> I don't have a degree in physics either

Quite so.. Maybe you shouldn't throw stones in that
glass house of yours?

--

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

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

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

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

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

Slackjaw

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 5:50:20 PM4/7/13

to

Man of Mind wrote:

-

> > > > I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
> > >
> > > Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
> > > cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
> >
> > Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.
>
> *>LOL!<* Translation: Run Away!..

Translation: I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.

>
> > > > Let's do some more physics problems!

> -

> >
> > I don't have a degree in physics
>
> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..

Who says I do? I can solve the problem, even though I don't have a
degree in physics - can you?

>
> One of us got his degree in physics,

If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics, then your"degree"
isn't very valid, now is it?

> and you've admitted
> that it wasn't you, nor any of your sock-puppets..

--

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 6:15:16 PM4/7/13

to

On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:

>
> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>
>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

.........

>>>>>>>>> That shouldn't be too hard,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>>>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>>>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>>>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>>>

>>>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>>>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>>
>>> Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Translation: Run Away!..
>
> Translation: I have nothing

That's correct, for once..

>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>

>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>
>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>
> Who says I do?

Me, slapped fraud..

> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics

Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..

Recall:

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

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

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

--

Cragar

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 9:00:45 PM4/7/13

to

On 4/6/2013 4:03 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> the only working
> familiarity you have with the study of the sciences
> ended when you finished junior high school, isn't it?

Isn't that where the Goreon's research tailed off as well?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 9:56:40 PM4/7/13

to

On 4/7/2013 8:00 PM, cranker <du...@invalid.nut> deleted and bleated:
>
> On 4/6/2013 4:03 PM, Man of Mind restored:

>>
>> On 4/7/2013 8:01 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>

>>> On Apr 6, 7:03 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
....

>>> Perhaps you should try something simpler?
>>
>> Perhaps you couldn't address my counter-arguments as
>> regards your sock-puppet's claims about global warming?
>>
>> Let's run by that one more time, and see if you've got
>> anything more to add to this particular subject, before
>> you run away again whimpering about 'psychics problems'..
>>

>> your frightie-rightie behalf, because the only working

>> familiarity you have with the study of the sciences
>> ended when you finished junior high school, isn't it?
>>

>> Well? You going to answer any of that?
>

> Isn't that where [Former Vice-President Al Gore]'s

> research tailed off as well?

Nope, but keep telling on yourself, cranker..

--

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

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

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

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

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

Slackjaw

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 10:51:08 PM4/7/13

to

You reacted exactly as I predicted.

LOL - So much for your "physics degree".

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 7:00:21 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:

>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>

>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
.......

>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Okay..

>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>>>

>>>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>>>
>>>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>>>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>>>
>>> Who says I do?
>>
>> Me, slapped fraud..
>>
>>> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics
>>
>> Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..
>>

>> Recall:
>>
>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>>
>> "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"
>>
>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>

> You reacted

Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..

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

*>chuckling<*

What'd you say your degree was in, flapjaws?

--

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

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

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

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 7:33:38 AM4/8/13

to

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
>'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards.

That's from the guy who claims a degree in physics but doesn't even
understand faraday's law. See below:

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field..

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK...

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

...and here's Lochner claiming he's going to correct the University's lectures.

"I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, "
Kurt Licknob challenging ucdavis.edu knowledge of Faraday's law.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e3f66eb534b82eae?hl=en

...and then Lochner will have to correct Princeton, too..

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html

...and now LOchner admits that I was right and he was wrong all along.

Lochner:"Steve, what you found on Google is a common misconception
about Faraday's Law of Induction, that "magnetic fields"
somehow 'create' an electric field..

They don't, except in the presence of a conductor."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/de6447da602e27d2?hl=en

<GUFFAW> Looks like I successfully tricked Lochner into admitting
that even he knows that magnetic fields do create an electric field..

How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
he can't get drunk. He can't, you know... EXCEPT when alcohol is
present.

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 7:50:20 AM4/8/13

to

Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions from the
physics textbook he probably stole from the school library while he
was supposed to be sweeping up?

Slackjaw

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 7:50:01 AM4/8/13

to

> > You reacted exactly as I expected.

>
> Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
> 'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..

When you have to resort to blatant lying, then I know I've won.

>
> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>
> *>chuckling<*
>
> What'd you say your degree was in, flapjaws?

IT, my knowledge of physics is only at the freshman college level.
That's OK - I know enough to create and solve simple physics problems
that stump you.

All I wanted to do was to demonstrate how bogus your "physics degree"
really was.

Slackjaw

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 7:51:07 AM4/8/13

to

He does not accept defeat gracefully.

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 7:56:52 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:

>>
>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:

.........

>>>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay..

I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:

What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
of 1.0 centimeter from each other?

Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?

Put your answers right here---> _______________

In fact, you've been running away from this simple problem
regarding the comparison of electrostatic and magnetic
fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
faux pas, haven't you "steve"?

>>>>>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>>>>>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says I do?
>>>>
>>>> Me, slapped fraud..
>>>>
>>>>> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics
>>>>
>>>> Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..
>>>>
>>>> Recall:
>>>>
>>>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>>>>
>>>> "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>
>>> You reacted
>>

>> Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own

>> 'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..
>>
>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>
>> *>chuckling<*
>

> That's from the guy who claims a degree in physics

That's true, earned one, went back for a masters too..

> but doesn't even understand faraday's law.

No, that would be yourself that doesn't understand
Faraday's Law of Induction..

Transcript of Man of Mind schooling Steve Canyon, a synopsis:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

But, I keep forgetting, you don't even know what a conductor is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conduction#In_metals

"A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an
outer shell of electrons which freely dissociate from
their parent atoms and travel through the lattice.
This is also known as a positive ionic lattice. This
'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to
conduct electric current.

But, you don't understand the difference between electrostatic
and magnetic fields, to begin with, do you "steve"?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field

"A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,
and thatï¿½s precisely the reason why they are associated with each
other."

"They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
However, they are not dependant on each other. They may also
exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
field.

So, here, from your own cite, I present Faraday's Law of Induction

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf

10.3 Induced Electric Field

"Faradayï¿½s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,
an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
of a conservative field must vanish."

That may be just a little bit over your head, I suppose. You'd
have to study Maxwell's Laws to get past your junior high
'google scholar' comprehension of this subject. I suspect
that you're just too stubbornly lazy to try past that..

Much like your opinions on politics and economics, you've
demonstrated an abject lack of understanding past your
usual prepubescent regurgitations of right-wing pabulum..

> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
> he can't get drunk. He can't, you know...

Especially if I don't drink at all..

Say, why did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

--
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have significant
magnetic fields, Lochner."
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT

"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 8:29:00 AM4/8/13

to

Graceful is not a word I would ever associate with Curtie. I see him
as more of a stumbler, physically as well as mentally.

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 8:29:02 AM4/8/13

to

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:56:52 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>>
>>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>.........
>>>>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Okay..
>
>I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:

You're not qualified to ask technical questions, Licknutz..

How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 8:39:36 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:

>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:

.........

>>>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>>>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>>>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>>>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>>>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>>>>>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says I do?
>>>>
>>>> Me, slapped fraud..
>>>>
>>>>> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics
>>>>
>>>> Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..
>>>>
>>>> Recall:
>>>>
>>>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>>>>
>>>> "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>
>>> You reacted
>>

>> Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
>> 'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..
>>

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

> When you have to resort to blatant lying

Another false accusation from a sociopathic liar.. *>LOL!<*

Here's where you failed..

>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>
>> *>chuckling<*
>>
>> What'd you say your degree was in, flapjaws?
>
> IT, my knowledge of physics is only at the freshman college level.

It shows..

> That's OK - I know enough to create and solve simple physics problems

And that's about it, yeah, I noticed..

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

> All I wanted to do was to demonstrate how bogus

You really are, with multiple aliases and 'google scholarship',
while you resort to lies, personal attacks and juvenile insinuations
after I spanked you silly on the subject of global warming..

Yeah, that's been noted, too..

--
"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

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

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

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 8:45:18 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:

>
> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:

..
>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

>> he can't get drunk. He can't, [..]

>
> He does not accept defeat gracefully.

*>LOL!<* And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..

Let's go back over that again..

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid/

"Itï¿½s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical
purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature
is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause
would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more
complicated than one might think to detect and measure
changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth.
Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of
interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud
passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise
beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed.
The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the
sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earthï¿½s
surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is
by taking readings from space. "

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

"According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
sun's heat."

http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again

"[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known
that variations in solar activity ï¿½ whether on Earth or

other planets ï¿½ have nothing to do with global warming."

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 8:57:58 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, "steve" whimpered profusely before:
>
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:13:57 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

......

>>>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>
>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>
>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>
>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>
>> Okay..
>>

>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>

> Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions
> from the physics textbook he probably stole from the school

Actually, I put that question together for you to begin
to understand the differences between electric and magnetic
fields. But, you're too proud of your deliberate ignorance
to even begin to work this type of problem because you know,
if only subconsciously, that it challenges everything you've
blathered, blustered and fumed at me about..

And all this so you and flapsjaws can avoid how I refuted
your usual right-wing pseudo-science excuses for ignoring
man-made global climate changes..

How quaintly stupid of you both..

--

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 9:01:38 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" was seeking sympathy from:
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:51:07 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

Still can't solve it, eh?

What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
of 1.0 centimeter from each other?

Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?

Put your answers right here---> _______________

>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>
> Graceful is not a word I would ever associate

As you 'stumble' around trying to pretend some sort
of an imagined superiority after I proved you wrong..

Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, skippy?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 9:06:21 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" was still whimpering because:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:56:52 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:

...........

>>>>>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Okay..
>>
>> I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:
>>

>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>
>> In fact, you've been running away from this simple problem
>> regarding the comparison of electrostatic and magnetic
>> fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
>> faux pas, haven't you "steve"?
>

> You're not qualified to ask technical questions

*>LOL!<* I can think of several companies that would
argue that point with you, but it's easier just to pay
me to solve them..

Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 9:53:38 AM4/8/13

to

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:06:21 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" wrote:
>>
>>
>> You're not qualified to ask technical questions
>

>*>LOL!<* I can think..

Perhaps, but not logically, nor beyond the reasoning power of a child.
See below:

<LOL> So when is Lochner going to call NASA and tell them that
they're wrong?

Note that trailer trash Lochner returns from his
evening shift janitor job and because he cannot refute
it, he snips the quote from NASA which proves him
wrong.. see below:

Electromagnetic force is the force that produces electricity..
Thus, electromagnetic force is the force
that exists between the plates of a charged capacitor.
Of course it's also the force that charges those plates...

Electromagnetic force is one of the four forces of nature
which produces electricity... ...as stated (below) by
real physicists at NASA

**************************************************************
"there are four known forces:
[...]
2. Electromagnetic - This acts between electrically charged
particles. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced
by this force and it also has infinite range. "

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980127c.html

**************************************************************

NASA says that electromagnetic force is what produces electricity.
Lochner says it isn't. <LOL> So who're you gonna believe?

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 9:53:38 AM4/8/13

to

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:38 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What's

Exactly.. <LOL>

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 9:53:38 AM4/8/13

to

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:57:58 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, "steve" wrote:
>>
>> Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions

>> from the physics textbook he probably stole from the school where he
>> was sweeping up.
>
>Actually..

Yeah, I know, you weren't only sweeping up, but you'd been given
authority over the wastebaskets too.

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 9:53:38 AM4/8/13

to

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:45:18 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:
>>
>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>..
>>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

>>> he can't get drunk. He can't, you know... EXCEPT when alcohol is
>>>present.
>>

>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>
>*>LOL!<* And all this whining

Perhaps Curt should stop whining and face his legacy.

I remember when Kurt did a trace on my post and the icon showed up
where it always did when you traced someone in the Tampa area.. Kurt
thought I lived there..

"Oh, that place over on W. Rio Vista Ave he keeps posting from?"
--Little Kurtie Lichner trying to identify where I post from
and not realizing that any IP in the Tampa area showed up on that
spot.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2ceac009efcc3592?

I told Kurt that he got me and that he should come and visit me. I
wasn't home much and he should just come on in, grab a beer and take a
swim in the pool.

Poor Kurt finally figured it out and got very angry...
I wonder if Kurt is still angry about that...

Let it go Kurt. You'll feel better...

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 10:09:29 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 8:02 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> On Apr 7, 4:00 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>
>> Man of Mind as exploiting the evasions and sociopathy exhibited by:

>> >
>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>

>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>>

>>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

.......

>>>>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>>>>>

>>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>>
>>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>>

>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>
>>> Okay..
>>>
>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>
>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>
>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>
>> I don't know, I don't have a degree in physics. Do you? Perhaps you can
>> solve my problem.
>>
>> Can you?
>

> As I had said,

Nope, you merely insinuated that..

> I have solved it - the answer is 53.1301 degrees

Pretty much what I first guessed, btw..

When will you get around to addressing the cites that

I refuted your anti-global warming 'talking points' with?

Or, is that pretty much settled?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 10:16:47 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 8:06 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>
> On Apr 8, 7:56 am, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:

........

>>
>> I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:
>>
>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>
>> In fact, you've been running away from this simple problem
>> regarding the comparison of electrostatic and magnetic
>> fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
>> faux pas, haven't you "steve"?

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>>>>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>>>>>>>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who says I do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me, slapped fraud..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Recall:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>>>
>>>>> You reacted
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
>>>> 'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>>
>>>> *>chuckling<*
>>>
>>> That's from the guy who claims a degree in physics
>>
>> That's true, earned one, went back for a masters too..
>

> Kurt,

Who?

> why don't you just go ahead and concede that your
> "physics degree" is fictional?

Oh, maybe because it's not 'fictional' as you've dishonestly suggested..

> Everyone would respect you for your honesty.

That would be another fallacy, an appeal to a belief..

Now, when will you be addressing the cites I've presented,
instead of trying to deflect of into your usual innuendo?

other planets ï¿½ have nothing to do with global warming."

--
"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

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

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

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 10:26:39 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 7:58 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> muttered:
>
> On Apr 7, 9:47 am, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>
>> On 4/7/2013 7:53 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sputtered:
>>>
>>> On Apr 5, 10:31 am, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>>>>>

>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> whined:
..........
>>>>>>>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
>>>>>>>>>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>>>>>>>>>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
>>>>>>>>>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *>LOL!<*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a keeper, idiot boy..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you so proud of your deliberate ignorance?
>>>>>
>>>>> why don't you just do this?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Post Moffit's original problem
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/030b6cd635998e94?hl=en&dmode=source
>>>>
>>>> You place a cannon on a hill top with an elevation of 32 feet. It fires
>>>> a cannon ball perfectly horizontal at 1,000 feet per second and the
>>>> cannon ball has no drag.
>>>>
>>>> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?
>>>>
>>>> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
>>>>
>>>>> 2) Post his answer
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/5d3a905216989cbf?hl=en&dmode=source
>>>>
>>>> %%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet per second/per
>>>> second and the ball was traveling at 1,000 feet per second.
>>>>
>>>> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground? ----> 1,000
>>>> feet
>>>>
>>>> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground? ----> 1
>>>> second.
>>>>
>>>> A simple 6th grade math problem!
>>>>
>>>>> 3) Post your answer.
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/483d969d962c46f7?hl=en&dmode=source
>>>>
>>>> *>snurck!<* You're wrong, Dufus.. t=1.414 seconds..
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b204b512c6d820c9?hl=en&dmode=source
>>>>
>>>> Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..
>>>>
>>>> 32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2
>>>

>>> Actually, the correct equation
>>
>> You're again quibbling my notation, to no avail, faulty sham..

>>
>>>> Dividing the 16 out of the right side..
>>>>
>>>> 32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..
>>>

>>> Well, let's review. If your reproduction is accurate
>>
>> Think you can prove that my transcription is inaccurate?
>>
>> Then why suggest otherwise, you dishonest piece of refuse?
>
> Actually I didn't.

Aren't you the dishonorable pile of refuse that's suggesting
that I somehow got the equation wrong? Nice backpedal, boy..

>>> the original posters answer were not correct
>>
>> My point entirely, despite how you 'blotched' your own reply..
>>
>> F'rinstance..
>>
>>> The time it would take is the square root of two, in seconds,
>>> which is what you claimed. So, you screwed up the equation
>>
>> Nope, that would again be yourself quibbling my notation..
>
> Eh, your notation is not 100% correct, but, not important.

Indeed, but yours have had several glaring errors, right?

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

>>>>> That shouldn't be too hard,
>>>>
>>>> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>>>>

>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum?
>>>

>>> I see several posters have already debunked those cites
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Nope, that's wishful thinking on your behalf..

>>
>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>

>>> Hmm, good thing that YOU don't do that
>>
>> Yup, I would never compromise like you do with several of
>> your sock-puppets sniveling in the same wretched manner
>> as you do..
>
> Like "SlackFest"

Like the way you're avoiding how I refuted your various
sock-puppets' pseudo-science excuses for man-made climate
changes?

Let's go back over that again..

You can run away, but it doesn't change the scientific facts..

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 10:33:40 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continued whimpering for attention:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:38 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at the evasions from:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" was seeking sympathy from:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:51:07 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>
>> Still can't solve it, eh?
> >
>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>> Put your answers right here---> _______________

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>>>
>>> Graceful is not a word I would ever associate
>>
>> As you 'stumble' around trying to pretend some sort
>> of an imagined superiority after I proved you wrong..
>>
>> Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, skippy?
>

> Exactly.. <LOL>

SO that would be "none", and you've been running away from this

simple problem regarding the comparison of electrostatic and
magnetic fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
faux pas, haven't you "steve"?

Maybe you should look up the term "potential difference"?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 10:36:48 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continue whimpering for attention:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:45:18 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:

....

>>>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

>>>> he can't get drunk. He can't, [..]

>>>
>>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>>

>> *>LOL!<* And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
>> trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..
>

> Perhaps Curt

Who?

Maybe you need more than just a "google search" to help you?

That may be just a little bit over your head, I suppose. You'd
have to study Maxwell's Laws to get past your junior high
'google scholar' comprehension of this subject. I suspect
that you're just too stubbornly lazy to try past that..

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 10:41:47 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continued sniveling impotently at:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:06:21 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" was still whimpering because:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:56:52 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:

....

>>>> I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:
>>>>
>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>
>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>
>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>>
>>>> In fact, you've been running away from this simple problem
>>>> regarding the comparison of electrostatic and magnetic
>>>> fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
>>>> faux pas, haven't you "steve"?
>>>

>>> You're not qualified to ask technical questions
>>

>> *>LOL!<* I can think of several companies that would
>> argue that point with you, but it's easier just to pay
>> me to solve them..
>

> Perhaps, but

Speaking "the reasoning power of a child", how's that "google"
scholarship of yours holding up against actual knowledge?

Not very good, it seems..

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 10:44:34 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" cowardly deleted and bleated:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:57:58 -0500, Man of Mind restored:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, "steve" whimpered profusely before:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:13:57 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

........

>>>>>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>>>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>>>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>>>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>>>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>>>
>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>
>>>> Okay..
>>>>
>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>
>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>
>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>

>>> Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions
>>> from the physics textbook he probably stole from the school
>>

>> Actually, I put that question together for you to begin
>> to understand the differences between electric and magnetic
>> fields. But, you're too proud of your deliberate ignorance
>> to even begin to work this type of problem because you know,
>> if only subconsciously, that it challenges everything you've
>> blathered, blustered and fumed at me about..
>>
>> And all this so you and flapsjaws can avoid how I refuted
>> your usual right-wing pseudo-science excuses for ignoring
>> man-made global climate changes..
>>
>> How quaintly stupid of you both..
>

> Yeah, I know

When will you act to remediate your ambitious ignorance?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 11:17:58 AM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 10:07 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>
> On Apr 8, 10:16 am, Man of Mind continued exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 8:06 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>
>>> On Apr 8, 7:56 am, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:

..........

>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>>>>>>>>>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who says I do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Me, slapped fraud..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Recall:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You reacted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
>>>>>> 'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *>chuckling<*
>>>>>
>>>>> That's from the guy who claims a degree in physics
>>>>
>>>> That's true, earned one, went back for a masters too..
>>>
>>> Kurt,
>>
>> Who?
>

> Should I call you

Not interested..

>>> why don't you just go ahead and concede that your
>>> "physics degree" is fictional?
>>
>> Oh, maybe because it's not 'fictional' as you've dishonestly suggested..
>
>

> Or maybe it is

Or maybe you're just trying to insinuate that, so as to avoid
the cites that I've presented..

>>> Everyone would respect you for your honesty.
>>
>> That would be another fallacy, an appeal to a belief..
>

> No, it's true

No, it's not..

> Why do you think everyone despises you now?

Why do you think everyone despises me?

Or were you again appealing to a 'belief', faulty sham?

>> Now, when will you be addressing the cites I've presented,
>> instead of trying to deflect of into your usual innuendo?
>

> Because your "cites" have already been debunked

Nope, haven't seen it.. Care to try again?

>> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid/
>>
>> "Itï¿½s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical
>> purposes, entirely by solar radiation.
>

> You realize you posted a cite that directly contradicts your belief

There is no 'belief' on my part such as you've insinuated..

>> "Itï¿½s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical
>> purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature
>> is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause
>> would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more
>> complicated than one might think to detect and measure
>> changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth.
>> Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of
>> interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud
>> passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise
>> beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed.
>> The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the
>> sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earthï¿½s
>> surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is
>> by taking readings from space. "
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>>
>> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
>> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
>> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
>> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
>> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
>> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
>> sun's heat."
>>

>> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go...

>>
>> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
>> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
>> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
>> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known
>> that variations in solar activity ï¿½ whether on Earth or
>> other planets ï¿½ have nothing to do with global warming."

I see that you're dishonestly trying to dismiss everything
that refutes your abject disregard for peer-reviewed studies
of the changing climate with your usual 'low-effort' thinking..

Pity..

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 12:37:32 PM4/8/13

to

>Speaking..

..but your probably slurring your words...

Transcript of Lochner admitting to being an alcoholic and a
dead-beat dad which leads to him being desperate to
manufacture unsupported nonsense (ie, <chuckle>)"something,
anything to attack me personally."

His problem here, of course, is that I have proof
whereas he has nothing.

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:30:55 -0600

Canyon: "did the court let you settle for pennies on the
dollar?"

Lochner "Not that I'm aware of.. Did you have any other
petty remarks? "

Canyon: "did they see that your kids were better off if
you weren't in the picture? "

Lochner "Why don't you go and find out for yourself, cartoon
hero..
Oh, that's right, you can't find anything past that, no
child custody filings, no further hearings on the
settled account and discontinuence.. Poor little
cartoon hero..
You really are looking for something, anything to
attack me personally, with malice aforethought..
That'll be just another in a long series of mistakes
you've made today.."

Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"

Lochner "Sure am, anything else you'd like to desperately try to
attack me personally with, or would you prefer to stop
now before you get into much more trouble?
--Or, do you just have nothing left to lose?"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7171c5a4bd29de81?hl=en

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 12:37:32 PM4/8/13

to

Irony anyone?

How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 12:37:32 PM4/8/13

to

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:33:40 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" wrote

>>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:38 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at the evasions from:
>>>

>>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" wrote

>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:51:07 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Still can't solve it, eh?
>> >
>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>
>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>
>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>
>*>cricket.wav<*

<CHUCKLE> Lochner imagines that he's qualified to ask those questions
when he doesn't even understand Faraday's law.

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 12:37:32 PM4/8/13

to

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:36:48 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continue whimpering for attention:
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:45:18 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>....
>>>>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
>>>>> he can't get drunk. He can't, [..]
>>>>
>>>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>>>
>>> *>LOL!<* And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
>>> trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..
>>
>> Perhaps Curt
>
>Who?

You, Lochner..

Names that Lick-knob Lockner has claimed to be me in the course of one week

"John Patrick"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a1cf0a750ed0a27b

"Nichole"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/7afc288cd5ce842a

"peter"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f0e68f5eeccd3d2d

"Sam"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b6e643d40be55c10

"It's Sollog's GF and/or little brother"
and supporters"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/66c5a3dea83b4cda

I remember when Curt did a trace on my post and the icon showed up where it always did when you traced someone in the Tampa area.. Curt thought I lived there..

"Oh, that place over on W. Rio Vista Ave he keeps posting from?"

--Little Curtie Lichner trying to identify where I post from

and not realizing that any IP in the Tampa area showed up on that spot.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2ceac009efcc3592?

I told Curt that he got me and that he should come and visit me. I wasn't home much and he should just come on in, grab a beer and take a swim in the pool.

Poor Kurt finally figured it out and got very angry...
I wonder if Kurt is still angry about that...

Let it go Lickner. You'll feel better...

"What about the Land of Lakes athletic facility, or the Seven
Springs Golf and Country Club? You left out those, as well
as the Palm Harbor facilities.."
--Licknuts Lochner trying to guess where I post from
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush limbaugh/msg/55997666e17bbb8e?hl=en

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 12:39:22 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 7:41 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

Say, when did you abandon Whitley Streiber's theories on gray aliens
among us, Kurt?

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 12:39:56 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 7:36 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> Perhaps Curt
>
> Who?

You mean he should have spelled it "Kurt"?

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 12:41:16 PM4/8/13

to

On Apr 8, 11:17 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2013 10:07 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> deleted:
>
>
>
>
>
> ss
>
> >>> Kurt,
>
> >> Who?
>
> > What should I call you, "untis boy"?

>
> Not interested..
>
> >>> why don't you just go ahead and concede that your
> >>> "physics degree" is fictional?
>
> >> Oh, maybe because it's not 'fictional' as you've dishonestly suggested..
>
> > Or maybe it is

How else do you explain your lack of knowledge of physics?

>
> Or maybe you're just trying to insinuate that, so as to avoid
> the cites that I've presented..
>
> >>> Everyone would respect you for your honesty.
>
> >> That would be another fallacy, an appeal to a belief..
>
> > No, it's true
>
> No, it's not..

Sure it is. Try it and you'll see.

>
> > Why do you think everyone despises you now?
>
> Why do you think everyone despises me?

Well, I may have not chosen the appropriate word there. My bad.

I should have said "Why do you think no one has any respect for you?'

>
> Or were you again appealing to a 'belief', faulty sham?

Who?

>
> >> Now, when will you be addressing the cites I've presented,
> >> instead of trying to deflect of into your usual innuendo?
>
> > Because your "cites" have already been debunked
>
> Nope, haven't seen it.. Care to try again?

Look again - I've seen multiple, other posters address this.

>
> >>http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid/
>
> >> "It’s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical

> >> purposes, entirely by solar radiation.
>
> > You realize you posted a cite that directly contradicts your belief
>
> There is no 'belief' on my part such as you've insinuated..
>

Oh? My bad - it must have been that other Kurt Lochner who posted
that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "It’s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical

> >> purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature
> >> is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause
> >> would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more
> >> complicated than one might think to detect and measure
> >> changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth.
> >> Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of
> >> interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud
> >> passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise
> >> beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed.
> >> The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the

> >> sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth’s

> >> surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is
> >> by taking readings from space. "

Won't dispute that one - but I'm not sure what point you're trying to
make.here.

>
> >>http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
>
> >>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>
> >> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
> >> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
> >> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
> >> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
> >> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
> >> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
> >> sun's heat."
>
> >>http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go...
>
> >> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
> >> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
> >> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
> >> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

> >> that variations in solar activity – whether on Earth or
> >> other planets – have nothing to do with global warming."

>
> I see that you're dishonestly trying to dismiss everything
> that refutes your abject disregard for peer-reviewed studies
> of the changing climate with your usual 'low-effort' thinking..
>
> Pity..

Hmmm, have you seen this?

Yet more embarrassing emails have been released by an unknown hacker
or hackers that show the top climate scientists engaging more in
political activism than in science. In many of the emails they seem to
out right admit that they have a weak argument, but that didn't stop
them propaganda.

Here are some quotes from one of the scientists to another.

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the
tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach
and discount a wealth of others.

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a
political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever
in the long run.

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have
been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by
individual authors and by IPCC

See The Telegraph article (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/
jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-
climategate-ii/) for much more information and quotes.

Or download the entire set of emails form here (warning, this is a
very large file). (link updated)
h/t - WCK

or this:

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 12:42:38 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 7:33 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

Say, who's this jaunty fellow?

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

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 12:42:57 PM4/8/13

to

You forgot to mention he invented the internet.

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 1:35:30 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:42 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
> On Apr 8, 12:32 pm, canker <du...@invalid.nut> was last seen sniveling impotently:
....

>>>> Isn't that where [Former Vice-President Al Gore]'s
>>>> research tailed off as well?
>>>
>>> Nope, but keep telling on yourself, cranker..
>>
>> Wait, wait...you mean

*>LOL!<* Desperate for attention today, sockpuppet?

> You forgot to mention he invented the internet.

He certainly made your pathetic job possible, code-monkey..

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 1:39:21 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 10:35 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 4/8/2013 11:42 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>
>> On Apr 8, 12:32 pm, canker <du...@invalid.nut> was last seen sniveling
>> impotently:
> ....
>>>>> Isn't that where [Former Vice-President Al Gore]'s
>>>>> research tailed off as well?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, but keep telling on yourself, cranker..
>>>
>>> Wait, wait...you mean
>
> *>LOL!<* Desperate for attention today, sockpuppet?

Still taking the bait, croaker?

>> You forgot to mention he invented the internet.
>
> He certainly made your pathetic job possible, code-monkey..

Which university did your alleged PhD come from, coraker?

*>crickets<*

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:11:01 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, "steve" continue whimpering for attention:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:36:48 -0500, Man of Mind noted the usual shallowness from:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continue whimpering for attention:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:45:18 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:

......

>>>>>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
>>>>>> he can't get drunk. He can't, [..]
>>>>>
>>>>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
>>>> trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..
>>>
>>> Perhaps Curt
>>
>> Who?
>
> You

I see that you're again avoiding the substance of my postings..

Let's go back over that again..

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid/

"Itï¿½s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical

purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature
is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause
would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more
complicated than one might think to detect and measure
changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth.
Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of
interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud
passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise
beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed.
The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the

sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earthï¿½s

surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is
by taking readings from space. "

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

"According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
sun's heat."

http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again

"[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

that variations in solar activity ï¿½ whether on Earth or
other planets ï¿½ have nothing to do with global warming."

Try not to choke again, John-boy..

--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is
like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."

--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:18:13 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:11 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
> been decreasing

...

> Try not to choke again, John-boy..

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:37:11 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:41 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>
> On Apr 8, 11:17 am, Man of Mind was taunting the ignorance expressed by:
>>
>> On 4/8/2013 10:07 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>
>>> On Apr 8, 10:16 am, Man of Mind continued exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 8:06 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 8, 7:56 am, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
.............

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who says I do?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Me, slapped fraud..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Recall:

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

>>>>>>>>>> "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> You reacted
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
>>>>>>>> 'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..

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

>>>>>>>> *>chuckling<*

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's from the guy who claims a degree in physics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, earned one, went back for a masters too..
>>>>>

>>>>> Kurt,
>>>>
>>>> Who?
>>>
>>> Should I call you
>>
>> Not interested..
>>
>>>>> why don't you just go ahead and concede that your
>>>>> "physics degree" is fictional?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, maybe because it's not 'fictional' as you've dishonestly suggested..
>>>
>>> Or maybe it is
>>
>> Or maybe you're just trying to insinuate that, so as to avoid
>> the cites that I've presented..
>
> How else do you explain

Well, a low-functioning sociopathy on your behalf covers it..

>>>>> Everyone would respect you for your honesty.
>>>>
>>>> That would be another fallacy, an appeal to a belief..
>>>
>>> No, it's true
>>
>> No, it's not..
>
> Sure

*>LOL!<* I am sure..

>>> Why do you think everyone despises you now?
>>
>> Why do you think everyone despises me?
>>
>> Or were you again appealing to a 'belief', faulty sham?
>
> Well, I may have not chosen the appropriate word there

Indeed, that's why only your fellow right-wingnutters have any
semblance of 'respect' for your tawdry remarks and sophomoric
pseudo-scientific twaddle..

Then, of course, there's your dyslexia, too..

>>>> Now, when will you be addressing the cites I've presented,
>>>> instead of trying to deflect of into your usual innuendo?
>>>
>>> Because your "cites" have already been debunked
>>
>> Nope, haven't seen it.. Care to try again?
>
> Look again - I've seen multiple

All I've seen is 'straw man' accounts of what I wrote,
none of which even approaches what I actually wrote, quoted
and explained in detail..

Example follows..

>>>> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid/
>>>>
>>>> "Itï¿½s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical
>>>> purposes, entirely by solar radiation.
>>>

>>> You realize you posted a cite that directly contradicts your belief
>>
>> There is no 'belief' on my part such as you've insinuated..
>
> Oh? My bad - it must have been

Another straw man pseudo-argument on your lamest behalf, no?

>>>> "Itï¿½s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical
>>>> purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature
>>>> is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause
>>>> would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more
>>>> complicated than one might think to detect and measure
>>>> changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth.
>>>> Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of
>>>> interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud
>>>> passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise
>>>> beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed.
>>>> The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the
>>>> sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earthï¿½s
>>>> surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is
>>>> by taking readings from space. "
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>>>>
>>>> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
>>>> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
>>>> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
>>>> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
>>>> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
>>>> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
>>>> sun's heat."
>>>>

>>>> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go...

>>>>
>>>> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually

>>>> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
>>>> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
>>>> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known
>>>> that variations in solar activity ï¿½ whether on Earth or
>>>> other planets ï¿½ have nothing to do with global warming."
>>

>> I see that you're dishonestly trying to dismiss everything

>> that refutes your abject disregard for peer-reviewed studies
>> of the changing climate with your usual 'low-effort' thinking..
>>
>> Pity..
>
> Hmmm, have you seen this?

Nope..

> Yet more embarrassing emails have been released by an unknown hacker
> or hackers that show the top climate scientists engaging more in
> political activism than in science.

And you don't have a clue as to why, I suppose?

> See The Telegraph article (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/
> jamesdelingpole

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_Delingpole

So, you're 'citing' a fiction writer? That's hilarious!

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:41:09 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, "steve" was bloviating like a retard:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:44:34 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>
>> On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" cowardly deleted and bleated:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:57:58 -0500, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, "steve" whimpered profusely before:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:13:57 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
.....
>>>>> Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions
>>>>> from the physics textbook he probably stole from the school
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I put that question together for you to begin
>>>> to understand the differences between electric and magnetic
>>>> fields. But, you're too proud of your deliberate ignorance
>>>> to even begin to work this type of problem because you know,
>>>> if only subconsciously, that it challenges everything you've
>>>> blathered, blustered and fumed at me about..
>>>>
>>>> And all this so you and flapsjaws can avoid how I refuted

>>>> your usual right-wing pseudo-science excuses for ignoring
>>>> man-made global climate changes..
>>>>

>>>> How quaintly stupid of you both..
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know
>>
>> When will you act to remediate your ambitious ignorance?
>
> Irony

It's not just for breakfast, crayon..

--
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have significant
magnetic fields, Lochner."
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT

"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:43:32 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_Delingpole
>
> So, you're 'citing' a fiction writer? That's hilarious!

So you're backing the non-academically trained "scientist" Goreon?

That's priceless!

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:44:59 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:41 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> Irony
>
> It's not just for breakfast, crayon..

True that...

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:50:57 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, "steve" whimpered impotently when:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:33:40 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at the evasions of:
>>
>> On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" wrote
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:38 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at the evasions from:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:51:07 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>
>>>> Still can't solve it, eh?
>>>>
>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>
>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>
>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>
>> *>cricket.wav<*
>
> <CHUCKLE>

Still can't solve it, eh?

Transcript of Man of Mind schooling Steve Canyon, a synopsis:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

But, I keep forgetting, you don't even know what a conductor is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conduction#In_metals

"A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an
outer shell of electrons which freely dissociate from
their parent atoms and travel through the lattice.
This is also known as a positive ionic lattice. This
'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to
conduct electric current.

But, you don't understand the difference between electrostatic
and magnetic fields, to begin with, do you "steve"?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field

"A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,
and thatï¿½s precisely the reason why they are associated with each
other."

"They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
However, they are not dependant on each other. They may also
exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
field.

So, here, from your own cite, I present Faraday's Law of Induction

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf

10.3 Induced Electric Field

"Faradayï¿½s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,
an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
of a conservative field must vanish."

Maybe you should look up the term "potential difference"?

Much like your opinions on politics and economics, you've
demonstrated an abject lack of understanding past your
usual prepubescent regurgitations of right-wing pabulum..

Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:54:28 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:50 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> Much like your opinions on politics and economics, you've
> demonstrated an abject lack of understanding past your
> usual prepubescent regurgitations of right-wing pabulum..

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html

The trend obtained from both databases is positive. This means that the
Total Solar Irradiance is actually increasing since 1610 A.D. The total
increase has been 3.2932 W/m^2.

From this graph, we infer that changes of terrestrial tropospheric
temperature follow the same trend as the intensity of total solar
irradiance, i.e. that they have increased since 1699 AD.

> Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

Say, what were you supposedly arrested for, Kurt?

*crickets.wav<*

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:55:55 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, "steve" continued sniveling impotently at:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:41:47 -0500, Man of Mind continued exploiting:
>>
>> On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continued sniveling impotently at:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:06:21 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" was still whimpering because:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:56:52 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:

......
>>>>>> I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>>>>

>>>>>> In fact, you've been running away from this simple problem
>>>>>> regarding the comparison of electrostatic and magnetic
>>>>>> fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
>>>>>> faux pas, haven't you "steve"?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're not qualified to ask technical questions
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* I can think of several companies that would
>>>> argue that point with you, but it's easier just to pay
>>>> me to solve them..
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but
>>
>> Speaking "the reasoning power of a child", how's that "google"
>> scholarship of yours holding up against actual knowledge?
>>
>> Not very good, it seems..
>
> ..but your probably slurring your words...

Nope, but you can insinuate anything you'd like. We both
know you couldn't be bothered to work even the simpler
physics problems involving electric and magnetic fields.

And all you can do is sputter impotently like a frustrated
fourth-grader, reciting taunts you've heard the junior high
school student use. That's how pathetic you appear to be..

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 3:00:33 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 9:42 AM, Cragar wrote:

> On 4/8/2013 7:33 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?
>

> Say, who's this jaunty fellow?
>
> http://s3.amazonaws.com/pics.fandalism.com/550x550-B480FF05-37A6-4819-A65C3C92CAB87F22.jpg
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xATUw_ZVTzQ&playnext=1&list=PLF8169A63E7A7AE80&feature=results_video

Cragar

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 3:02:49 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:55 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> And all you can do is sputter impotently

Shouldn't you work on that malignant narcissistic personality disorder
of yours?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xATUw_ZVTzQ&playnext=1&list=PLF8169A63E7A7AE80&feature=results_video

Steve

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 4:21:20 PM4/8/13

to

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:50:57 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, "steve" whimpered impotently when:
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:33:40 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at the evasions of:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" wrote
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:38 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at the evasions from:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:51:07 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Still can't solve it, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>
>>> *>cricket.wav<*
>>
>> <CHUCKLE>

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field..

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK...

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

...and here's Lochner claiming he's going to correct the University's lectures.

"I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, "
Kurt Licknob challenging ucdavis.edu knowledge of Faraday's law.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e3f66eb534b82eae?hl=en

...and then Lochner will have to correct Princeton, too..

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html

...and now LOchner admits that I was right and he was wrong all along.

Lochner:"Steve, what you found on Google is a common misconception
about Faraday's Law of Induction, that "magnetic fields"
somehow 'create' an electric field..

They don't, except in the presence of a conductor."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/de6447da602e27d2?hl=en

<GUFFAW> Looks like I successfully tricked Lochner into admitting
that even he knows that magnetic fields do create an electric field..

How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

he can't get drunk. He can't, you know... EXCEPT when alcohol is
present.