Re: Ever wonder how Faulty Sham, and the rest of the rightwing nutjobs came to be so ignorant"..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/2/2013 8:41 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

> Did you ever see

No, I didn't see you check your answers, after you 'refined' them..

Here's some numbers you thought you wouldn't need, just as a hint:

> the equation reads: (Have to make do without symbols)
>
> S Gma/(r + x)^2 dx = potential energy.

Nope, integrating that, you should have gotten:

U = GM(e) S [dy/(r+y)^2] = Gm(e) * [-1/(r+y)], from r+y to r..

(and I bet you won't get the reason for that either, so see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential#Mathematical_form
for yet another clue, if you're actually interested, which I doubt.)

..with the negative sign indicating that the force of
gravitational acceleration acts in the negative direction
of the y-axis..

The constants are:

G = 6.674 * 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2 (or (m^3)/(kg*s^2))
Me, the mass of the Earth = 5.97 * 10^24 (kg)
r = 6378 km

and the initial height, along the y-axis is y(o) = 804 km

> Integrating we get a value of about 75 million

That's off by a couple of orders of magnitude, faulty sham.
You should've gotten something like 7.0*10^9 (kg*km^2/s^2),
and if that doesn't frighten you off, v should be around
17,000 ft/sec..

But, like I said, depending upon the level of fake histrionics
I can elicit from your "low-effort thinking", I'll continue to
'guide' you past your previous mistakes. I'll try not to laugh
at your abject lack of embarrassment, my little sociopathic net-pet..

So, after several years, it comes to light that you couldn't
even work your own 'psychics problem', using your own
"memory and brain power", using the correct constants and formula..

Thought so, from the very start.

Congrats, you've been pwned..

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

"You don't don't the difference between a typo and a grammar mistake?"

"Sigh, there are other people are smarter than you. Get over it."

"Heck no, nor do I expect Obama would never get us back on our feet."

"Maybe if explained the meaning of the cartoons, they might understand
them better."

"I also posted a correction - once I found I made a mistake, I stop
doing it."

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

"It seems there are a lot of concepts you're never heard of."

"I posted my answers, hoe could you mis them?"

"No one here wants is interested in your queer reams."

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

"Unless you're trying to incinerate "false precision", which is the
term that engineers actually use."

"Despite all the pressure, Obama would not release his brith certificate"

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

"I can't help but notice how it seems liberals' posts are full
of grammar and spelling mistake, as if they can't write above
a fifth-grade level."

[Man of Mind]

On 5/2/2013 9:09 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:

>>
>> On 5/2/2013 8:41 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>>> Did you ever see
>>
>> No, I didn't see you check your answers, after you 'refined' them..
>>
>> Here's some numbers you thought you wouldn't need, just as a hint:
>>
>>> the equation reads: (Have to make do without symbols)
>>>
>>> S Gma/(r + x)^2 dx = potential energy.
>>
>> Nope, integrating that, you should have gotten:
>>
>> U = GM(e) S [dy/(r+y)^2] = Gm(e) * [-1/(r+y)], from r+y to r..
>>
>> (and I bet you won't get the reason for that either, so see
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential#Mathematical_form
>> for yet another clue, if you're actually interested, which I doubt.)
>>
>> ..with the negative sign indicating that the force of
>> gravitational acceleration acts in the negative direction
>> of the y-axis..
>>
>> The constants are:
>>
>> G = 6.674 * 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2 (or (m^3)/(kg*s^2))
>> Me, the mass of the Earth = 5.97 * 10^24 (kg)
>> r = 6378 km
>>
>> and the initial height, along the y-axis is y(o) = 804 km
>>
>>> Integrating we get a value of about 75 million
>>
>> That's off by a couple of orders of magnitude, faulty sham.
>> You should've gotten something like 7.0*10^9 (kg*km^2/s^2),
>> and if that doesn't frighten you off, v should be around
>> 17,000 ft/sec..
>

> Well

Here's the wind-up..

> One thing you forgot

Here comes the pitch..

> Not exactly the figure I got

Oops, you mean you didn't get "the answer right the right time"?

> but not important.

Yes, dismiss your wrong answers quickly, so no-one notices
that you couldn't work your own 'psychics problem' using
your "own memory and brain power"..

> I was just trying to prove that I could solve the problem.

Well then, you might want to review your "answers"..

> C'mon Kurt - tell the truth, you got somebody to help you

Nope, but I did dust off some of my first-year skills, just
so it would be established that you're a liar and a fraud..

But, like I said, depending upon the level of fake histrionics
I can elicit from your "low-effort thinking", I'll continue

exploit your sociopathy, as I see fit..

I'll try not to laugh at your abject lack of embarrassment,

my little sociopathic net-pet, but here's how it stands..

After several years, it now comes to light that you couldn't

[Man of Mind]

On 5/2/2013 9:13 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

> I find it amusing he accuses you of being ignorant of

Classical electrodynamics.. By the way, I got the right answer
to the 'capacitor problem' you looked up using Google..

Try not to get excited about that, after all, you couldn't
even work that "mechanics problem" (kinematics, actually)
correctly or even use the proper constants and measures..

So much for your bragging about using your "own memory and
brain power", no?

--
"Don't you wish you wre smart enough to solve psychics problems like me?"

[Man of Mind]

On 5/3/2013 6:29 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind was amused, again, by the evasive rationalizations of:

>>
>> On 5/2/2013 9:13 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>>> I find it amusing he accuses you of being ignorant of
>>
>> Classical electrodynamics.. By the way, I got the right answer
>> to the 'capacitor problem' you looked up using Google..
>>
>> Try not to get excited about that, after all, you couldn't
>> even work that "mechanics problem" (kinematics, actually)
>> correctly or even use the proper constants and measures..
>>
>> So much for your bragging about using your "own memory and
>> brain power", no?
>

> This was your "answer"

No, this is my castigation of your lies, evasions and
insinuations, because you're not honest enough to admit
your mistakes..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/3/2013 6:39 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

> Hmm, you right away from that

So, now you're complaining about how I answered, but not
the answer itself? Is that it, slapped fraud? *>LOL!<*

>>> Not exactly the figure I got
>>
>> Oops, you mean you didn't get "the answer right the right time"?
>

> Yes, as a matter of fact, I did, the final velocity is 12,200 ft/sec

Yes, but you didn't use the constants that I referred you to..

> Your answer of 17,000 ft/sec is, of course, wrong.

*>LOL!<* Nope, you didn't use the correct constants, never
referred to them in a precise, or accurate manner, and now
all you can do is insinuate that my answers are wrong, with
much squirming and evasions on your own behalf, slapped fraud..

>>> but not important.
>>
>> Yes, dismiss your wrong answers quickly, so no-one notices
>> that you couldn't work your own 'psychics problem' using
>> your "own memory and brain power"..
>

> Shall we dismiss your wrong answer?

Prove it was wrong, slapped fraud.. Keep in mind that I
worked those 'answers' of yours back through the equations
you tried to pretend you worked correctly, and it appears
that you've made several mistakes, besides the lack of the
correct gravitational constant..

>>> I was just trying to prove that I could solve the problem.
>>
>> Well then, you might want to review your "answers"..
>>
>>> C'mon Kurt - tell the truth, you got somebody to help you
>>
>> Nope, but I did dust off some of my first-year skills, just
>> so it would be established that you're a liar and a fraud..
>>
>> But, like I said, depending upon the level of fake histrionics
>> I can elicit from your "low-effort thinking", I'll continue
>> exploit your sociopathy, as I see fit..
>>
>> I'll try not to laugh at your abject lack of embarrassment,
>> my little sociopathic net-pet, but here's how it stands..
>>
>> After several years, it now comes to light that you couldn't
>> even work your own 'psychics problem', using your own
>> "memory and brain power", using the correct constants and formula..
>

> And yet I came up with the right answer

Nope, you didn't, and I can walk you through your mistakes,
depending upon your level of false histrionics and evasions..

>> Thought so, from the very start.
>>
>> Congrats, you've been pwned..
>

> Well

"Hmm, you right away from that"

*>LOL!<*

[Man of Mind]

On 5/3/2013 8:15 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 3, 7:39 am, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> Man of Mind noted the smugly condescending fallacy arguments posted by:

>>>
>>> On 5/2/2013 9:09 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/2/2013 8:41 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

......

> > Hmm, you right away from that

*>LOL!<* "you right away from that", eh?

>>>> Not exactly the figure I got
>>>
>>> Oops, you mean you didn't get "the answer right the right time"?

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

>>>> but not important.
>>>
>>> Yes, dismiss your wrong answers quickly, so no-one notices
>>> that you couldn't work your own 'psychics problem' using
>>> your "own memory and brain power"..

"Now, would you like me to correct your psychics mistakes?"

>>>> I was just trying to prove that I could solve the problem.
>>>
>>> Well then, you might want to review your "answers"..

"Don't you wish you wre smart enough to solve psychics problems like me?"

>>>> C'mon Kurt - tell the truth, you got somebody to help you
>>>
>>> Nope, but I did dust off some of my first-year skills, just
>>> so it would be established that you're a liar and a fraud..
>>>
>>> But, like I said, depending upon the level of fake histrionics
>>> I can elicit from your "low-effort thinking", I'll continue
>>> exploit your sociopathy, as I see fit..
>>>
>>> I'll try not to laugh at your abject lack of embarrassment,
>>> my little sociopathic net-pet, but here's how it stands..
>>>
>>> After several years, it now comes to light that you couldn't
>>> even work your own 'psychics problem', using your own
>>> "memory and brain power", using the correct constants and formula..
>>>
>>> Thought so, from the very start.
> >>
>>> Congrats, you've been pwned..
>>

>> Well,
>
> LOL - looks like [we] got "pwned" again.

Yup, your denials to the contrary..

--

"Hmm, you right away from that"

"(What an idoit)"

"Not bad, but you make a tiny little erro."

[Man of Mind]

On 5/3/2013 9:51 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 3, 8:07 am, Man of Mind restored the details that refuted:

> [..] you screwed up. The velocity is about 12,000 ft /sec

Nope.. You didn't use the correct gravitational constant,
and hence your mix-up of your measurement became obvious..

Need a hint:

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

>>>>> Well
>>>>
>>>> Here's the wind-up..
>>>>
>>>>> One thing you forgot
>>>>
>>>> Here comes the pitch..
>>>
>>> Hmm, you right away from that
>>
>> So, now you're complaining about how I answered, but not
>> the answer itself? Is that it, slapped fraud? *>LOL!<*
>

> And where did you get that value of 7.0*10^9 kg*km^2/s^2?

From:

U = GM(e) S [dy/(r+y)^2] = Gm(e) * [-1/(r+y)], from r+y to r..

And:

G = 6.674 * 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2 (or (m^3)/(kg*s^2))
Me, the mass of the Earth = 5.97 * 10^24 (kg)

r = 6378 km, y(0) = 804km

Are you saying that the answer is beyond your grasp?

Thought so..

>>>>> Not exactly the figure I got
>>>>
>>>> Oops, you mean you didn't get "the answer right the right time"?
>>>
>>> Yes, as a matter of fact, I did, the final velocity is 12,200 ft/sec
>>
>> Yes, but you didn't use the constants that I referred you to..
>>
>>> Your answer of 17,000 ft/sec is, of course, wrong.
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Nope, you didn't use the correct constants, never
>> referred to them in a precise, or accurate manner, and now
>> all you can do is insinuate that my answers are wrong, with
>> much squirming and evasions on your own behalf, slapped fraud..

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>> but not important.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, dismiss your wrong answers quickly, so no-one notices
>>>> that you couldn't work your own 'psychics problem' using
>>>> your "own memory and brain power"..
>>>
>>> Shall we dismiss your wrong answer?
>>
>> Prove it was wrong, slapped fraud.. Keep in mind that I
>> worked those 'answers' of yours back through the equations
>> you tried to pretend you worked correctly, and it appears
>> that you've made several mistakes, besides the lack of the
>> correct gravitational constant..

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

>>>>> I was just trying to prove that I could solve the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Well then, you might want to review your "answers"..
>>>>
>>>>> C'mon Kurt - tell the truth, you got somebody to help you
>>>>
>>>> Nope, but I did dust off some of my first-year skills, just
>>>> so it would be established that you're a liar and a fraud..
>>>>
>>>> But, like I said, depending upon the level of fake histrionics
>>>> I can elicit from your "low-effort thinking", I'll continue
>>>> exploit your sociopathy, as I see fit..
>>>>
>>>> I'll try not to laugh at your abject lack of embarrassment,
>>>> my little sociopathic net-pet, but here's how it stands..
>>>>
>>>> After several years, it now comes to light that you couldn't
>>>> even work your own 'psychics problem', using your own
>>>> "memory and brain power", using the correct constants and formula..
>>>
>>> And yet I came up with the right answer
>>
>> Nope, you didn't, and I can walk you through your mistakes,
>> depending upon your level of false histrionics and evasions..
>>
>>>> Thought so, from the very start.
>>>>
>>>> Congrats, you've been pwned..
>>>
>>> Well
>>
>> "Hmm, you right away from that"
>>
>> *>LOL!<*

..pwned, yet again..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/4/2013 5:57 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>
>> On 5/3/2013 6:39 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/2/2013 9:09 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/2013 8:41 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

-------

> No I'm saying you didn't show your work,

Nor did you, so I posted the constants that you don't seem
to think are needed, just to gall you further into more of
your false histrionics and smug insinuations..

I told you that I was going to walk you through your mistakes,
step-by-step, and you seem to want your mistakes examined,
because of some pathological need.. So be it..

>>>>> Not exactly the figure I got
>>>>
>>>> Oops, you mean you didn't get "the answer right the right time"?
>>>
>>> Yes, as a matter of fact, I did, the final velocity is 12,200 ft/sec
>>
>> Yes, but you didn't use the constants that I referred you to..
>>
>>> Your answer of 17,000 ft/sec is, of course, wrong.
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Nope, you didn't use the correct constants, never
>> referred to them in a precise, or accurate manner, and now
>> all you can do is insinuate that my answers are wrong, with
>> much squirming and evasions on your own behalf, slapped fraud..

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>> but not important.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, dismiss your wrong answers quickly, so no-one notices
>>>> that you couldn't work your own 'psychics problem' using
>>>> your "own memory and brain power"..
>>>
>>> Shall we dismiss your wrong answer?
>>
>> Prove it was wrong, slapped fraud.. Keep in mind that I
>> worked those 'answers' of yours back through the equations
>> you tried to pretend you worked correctly, and it appears
>> that you've made several mistakes, besides the lack of the
>> correct gravitational constant..
>

> Better yet, show your work

Already did that, you're simply squirming because of your
right-wing 'tea-protofascist' double-standard won't allow
you to admit you made a huge error with all the 'short-cuts'
your 'low-effort thinking' allows you to rationalize..

Example follows..

> For the value "g" I used 32.16 ft/sec^2

Yup, the problem with that is that "g" at 500 miles up is
actually around 28 ft/s^2..

So, in other words, you've just admitted to me why your
answer is completely wrong. Oh, and you you should've
gotten a figure of around 77 million, in that instance..

>>>>> I was just trying to prove that I could solve the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Well then, you might want to review your "answers"..
>>>>
>>>>> C'mon Kurt - tell the truth, you got somebody to help you
>>>>
>>>> Nope, but I did dust off some of my first-year skills, just
>>>> so it would be established that you're a liar and a fraud..
>>>>
>>>> But, like I said, depending upon the level of fake histrionics
>>>> I can elicit from your "low-effort thinking", I'll continue
>>>> exploit your sociopathy, as I see fit..
>>>>
>>>> I'll try not to laugh at your abject lack of embarrassment,
>>>> my little sociopathic net-pet, but here's how it stands..
>>>>
>>>> After several years, it now comes to light that you couldn't
>>>> even work your own 'psychics problem', using your own
>>>> "memory and brain power", using the correct constants and formula..
>>>
>>> And yet I came up with the right answer
>>
>> Nope, you didn't, and I can walk you through your mistakes,
>> depending upon your level of false histrionics and evasions..
>

> Well, you can try, I would like to see that.

You appear to be avoiding it, slapped fraud.. *>LOL!<*

>>>> Thought so, from the very start.
>>>>
>>>> Congrats, you've been pwned..
>>>
>>> Well
>>
>> "Hmm, you right away from that"
>>
>> *>LOL!<*
>

> I do want to say that just because

"Hmm, you right away from that"

Congrats, you've been pwned, again..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/3/2013 9:07 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> Man of Mind was amused, again, by the evasive rationalizations of:
>>
>> On 5/3/2013 6:29 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was amused, again, by the evasive rationalizations of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/2/2013 9:13 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>>> I find it amusing he accuses you of being ignorant of
>>>>
>>>> Classical electrodynamics.. By the way, I got the right answer
>>>> to the 'capacitor problem' you looked up using Google..
>>>>
>>>> Try not to get excited about that, after all, you couldn't
>>>> even work that "mechanics problem" (kinematics, actually)
>>>> correctly or even use the proper constants and measures..
>>>>
>>>> So much for your bragging about using your "own memory and
>>>> brain power", no?
>>>
>>> This was your "answer"
>>
>> No, this is my castigation of your lies, evasions and
>> insinuations, because you're not honest enough to admit
>> your mistakes..
>

> Good grief, to [me] lying is as natural as breathing.

Indeed, that's the result of your 'low-effort thinking'..

> Do [I] have even one ounce of integrity?

Nope, not that I have noticed..

--

"Hmm, you right away from that"

[Man of Mind]

On 5/4/2013 11:12 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>
>> On 5/4/2013 5:57 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/3/2013 6:39 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/2013 9:09 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2013 8:41 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.........

> Go back and re-check your calculations, until you discover what
> you did wrong. If you do it right, then you'll find the right
> answer is what I said, about 12,000 ft/sec.

Nope, you used "g", and even got that approximation wrong..

Per the formula at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Altitude

g(h) = g(0) * [r(e)/(r(e)+h)]^2

Where

g(h) is the gravitational acceleration at height h
r(e) is the Earth's mean radius.
g(0) is the standard gravitational acceleration.

You should have used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Estimating_g_from_the_law_of_universal_gravitation

F = (G*m1*m2)/(r+h)^2

Where

G = 6.674 * 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2 (or (m^3)/(kg*s^2))

m1, the mass of the Earth = 5.97 * 10^24 (kg)
r = 6378 km
h = 804km (500 miles)

And then integrated this to get the potential energy, U..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential#Mathematical_form

>>>>>>> but not important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, dismiss your wrong answers quickly, so no-one notices
>>>>>> that you couldn't work your own 'psychics problem' using
>>>>>> your "own memory and brain power"..
>>>>>
>>>>> Shall we dismiss your wrong answer?
>>>>
>>>> Prove it was wrong, slapped fraud.. Keep in mind that I
>>>> worked those 'answers' of yours back through the equations
>>>> you tried to pretend you worked correctly, and it appears
>>>> that you've made several mistakes, besides the lack of the
>>>> correct gravitational constant..
>>>
>>> Better yet, show your work
>>
>> Already did that, you're simply squirming because of your
>> right-wing 'tea-protofascist' double-standard won't allow
>> you to admit you made a huge error with all the 'short-cuts'
>> your 'low-effort thinking' allows you to rationalize..
>>
>> Example follows..
>>
>>> For the value "g" I used 32.16 ft/sec^2
>>
>> Yup, the problem with that is that "g" at 500 miles up is
>> actually around 28 ft/s^2..
>>
>> So, in other words, you've just admitted to me why your
>> answer is completely wrong. Oh, and you you should've
>> gotten a figure of around 77 million, in that instance..

[Slackjaw]

I got the right answer, 12,200 ft/sec. You came up with 17,000 ft/sec.

Show your work and I'll point out your mistake.

--
---
Truth is the cure for liberalism.
---

[Man of Mind]

On 5/5/2013 9:20 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind was again exploiting the deliberate lies and evasions of:

>>
>> On 5/4/2013 11:12 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/4/2013 5:57 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/3/2013 6:39 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was amused by the latest excuses presented by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2013 9:09 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.........

> I got the right answer

Nope..

> Show your work

You first, little net-pet..

--
"What to know what it is?"

"Hmm, you right away from that Kurt. Why is that?"

"When you plagairized those equations you made one glaring error."

"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"

[Man of Mind]

On 5/5/2013 2:02 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> Man of Mind was again exploiting the deliberate lies and evasions of:
>>
>> On 5/5/2013 9:20 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was again exploiting the deliberate lies and evasions of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/4/2013 11:12 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.....

>>>>> Go back and re-check your calculations, until you discover what
>>>>> you did wrong. If you do it right, then you'll find the right
>>>>> answer is what I said, about 12,000 ft/sec.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you used "g", and even got that approximation wrong..
>>>>
>>>> Per the formula at:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Altitude
>>>>
>>>> g(h) = g(0) * [r(e)/(r(e)+h)]^2
>>>>
>>>> Where
>>>>
>>>> g(h) is the gravitational acceleration at height h
>>>> r(e) is the Earth's mean radius.
>>>> g(0) is the standard gravitational acceleration.
>>>>
>>>> You should have used:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Estimating_g_from_the_law_of_universal_gravitation
>>>>
>>>> F = (G*m1*m2)/(r+h)^2
>>>>
>>>> Where
>>>>
>>>> G = 6.674 * 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2 (or (m^3)/(kg*s^2))
>>>> m1, the mass of the Earth = 5.97 * 10^24 (kg)
>>>> r = 6378 km
>>>> h = 804km (500 miles)
>>>>
>>>> And then integrated this to get the potential energy, U..
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential#Mathematical_form
>>>
>>> I got the right answer
>>
>> Nope..
>

> Would you like to have a $5,000 bet

I already know how this story turns out, slapped fraud..

You'll post your answer, without showing your work, then
you'll prance around the subject for a few more postings
and then pretend you somehow 'worked' your 'psychics problem'
correctly, using the wrong constant, and never pay up..

That's because of your "low-effort thinking", much like
how a pigeon will knock over the pieces on a chess board,
shit on the chessboard and then parade around triumphantly
like it won. That's how you 'tea-potty' Republicans act
when confronted with the facts that invalidate your insane
rationalizations and excuses..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/5/2013 5:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:

>>
>> On 5/5/2013 2:02 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was again exploiting the deliberate lies and evasions of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:20 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was again exploiting the deliberate lies and evasions of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/4/2013 11:12 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.......

> Sounds like a recap of what

..Vapid Muffette did, yes..

I take it that you didn't check your answers, still?

>> That's because of your "low-effort thinking", much like
>> how a pigeon will knock over the pieces on a chess board,
>> shit on the chessboard and then parade around triumphantly
>> like it won. That's how you 'tea-potty' Republicans act
>> when confronted with the facts that invalidate your insane
>> rationalizations and excuses..
>

> I understand, if I were you

But, you aren't, hence your evasions, insinuations and lies..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/5/2013 6:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>>
>> On 5/5/2013 5:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2013 2:02 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was again exploiting the deliberate lies and evasions of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:20 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.......

>>>>>>> I got the right answer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope..
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you like to have a $5,000 bet
>>>>
>>>> I already know how this story turns out, slapped fraud..
>>>>
>>>> You'll post your answer, without showing your work, then
>>>> you'll prance around the subject for a few more postings
>>>> and then pretend you somehow 'worked' your 'psychics problem'
>>>> correctly, using the wrong constant, and never pay up..
>>>
>>> Sounds like a recap of what
>>
>> ..Vapid Muffette did, yes..
>>
>> I take it that you didn't check your answers, still?
>>
>>>> That's because of your "low-effort thinking", much like
>>>> how a pigeon will knock over the pieces on a chess board,
>>>> shit on the chessboard and then parade around triumphantly
>>>> like it won. That's how you 'tea-potty' Republicans act
>>>> when confronted with the facts that invalidate your insane
>>>> rationalizations and excuses..
>>>
>>> I understand, if I were you
>>
>> But, you aren't, hence your evasions, insinuations and lies..
>

> Nice projection.

On your own behalf..

> My answer of 12,200 ft/sec is the correct one

No, it isn't. You used the wrong formula and constant,
"g" instead of "G", didn't get even so much as the sign
correct, and then compounded that error with the limits
of your integrand..

Care to try that again, slapped raw?

[Slackjaw]

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 5/5/2013 6:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
> >

-

> > > But, you aren't, hence your evasions, insinuations and lies..
> >
> > Nice projection.
> >

> > My answer of 12,200 ft/sec is the correct one
>
> No, it isn't. You used the wrong formula and constant,
> "g" instead of "G",

Just because you can't understand it, hardly means it's not correct.


My answer of 12,200 ft/sec is the correct one, and your guess of 17,000
is wrong.

Again, care to bet on that? It can be something you can afford, like
$50, or any amount you can dig up.

[Man of Mind]

On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>>

>> On 5/5/2013 6:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>

>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2013 5:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 2:02 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
......

>>>>>> That's because of your "low-effort thinking", much like
>>>>>> how a pigeon will knock over the pieces on a chess board,
>>>>>> shit on the chessboard and then parade around triumphantly
>>>>>> like it won. That's how you 'tea-potty' Republicans act
>>>>>> when confronted with the facts that invalidate your insane
>>>>>> rationalizations and excuses..
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand, if I were you
>>>>

>>>> But, you aren't, hence your evasions, insinuations and lies..
>>>
>>> Nice projection.
>>

>> On your own behalf..

>>
>>> My answer of 12,200 ft/sec is the correct one
>>
>> No, it isn't. You used the wrong formula and constant,

>> "g" instead of "G", didn't get even so much as the sign
>> correct, and then compounded that error with the limits
>> of your integrand..
>

> Just because [I] can't understand it

You also couldn't understand this:

> the equation reads: (Have to make do without symbols)
>
> S Gma/(r + x)^2 dx = potential energy.

As I said, integrating that, you should have gotten:

U = GM(e) S [dy/(r+y)^2] = Gm(e) * [-1/(r+y)], from r+y to r..

..with the negative sign indicating that the force of
gravitational acceleration acts in the negative direction
of the y-axis..

The constants are:

G = 6.674 * 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2 (or (m^3)/(kg*s^2))

Me, the mass of the Earth = 5.97 * 10^24 (kg)
r = 6378 km

and the initial height, along the y-axis is y(o) = 804 km

> Integrating we get a value of about 75 million

That's simply wrong, even the way you supposedly 'worked' it..

And, I asked repeatedly, what units was this quantity in?

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

Think you might look your 'answer' over again, before your
alligator mouth writes another check your hummingbird ass
can't cancel?

--
"What to know what it is?"

"Hmm, you right away from that Kurt. Why is that?"

"I posted my answers, hoe could you mis them?"

"When you plagairized those equations you made one glaring error."

"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"

"You don't don't the difference between a typo and a grammar mistake?"

"Sigh, there are other people are smarter than you. Get over it."

"I also posted a correction - once I found I made a mistake, I stop
doing it."

[Slackjaw]

OK here you go Kurt...

G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I
used.

My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2. Integrating we
get
m*g*Hf *r/(r+h) where Hf = height in feet, r = 3959 miles and h = 500
miles, so r/(r+h) = 0.8879, so the equation is M * 32.17 ft /sec^2 *
2,640,000ft * 0.8879 = M * 75,382,059 (ft/sec)^2

Since I chose a mass of unity, it really doesn't matter which unit of
mass it is, since it will cancel out in the end. So I picked "kg x
ft^2/sec^2", but I could just have easily picked grams, ounces, slugs,
or pounds. (Although, strictly speaking a pound is a measure of weight,
not mass). You see, all objects accelerate at same rate independent of
mass.

So now we have energy = 75,382,059 kg * (ft/sec)^2 which equals
1/2MV^2. Dividing out the 1/2M and we have

V^2 = 150,764,118 (ft/sec) ^2 OR
V = 12,278 ft/sec

Voila

[Man of Mind]

On 5/6/2013 10:08 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind was pointing out the mistakes made by:

>>
>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2013 6:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.....

Here's the mistake you made, initially..

> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I
> used.

Yup, then you substituted it for G, instead using the correct
formula and constants, per Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation

> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one
> you copied out of Wiki)

No, it isn't..

And I didn't have to copy it out of 'wiki', slapped fraud, nor
did I have to copy it after using Google, like you obviously
did.. That's three strikes, you're out..

> Integrating we get m*g*Hf *r/(r+h)

Nope.. You keep 'forgetting' that your 'g' = G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
and again "blotched" your own equations.

> where Hf = height in feet, r = 3959 miles and h = 500
> miles, so r/(r+h) = 0.8879, so the equation is M * 32.17 ft /sec^2 *
> 2,640,000ft * 0.8879 = M * 75,382,059 (ft/sec)^2

Well, at least you got the units stated correctly, for once..

> Since I chose a mass of unity,

You meant, since you can divide the units of mass out of this
by equivalency to the kinetic energy of the final velocity..

> it really doesn't matter which unit of mass it is,

Yes, it does, but you don't want to admit your fundamental errors..

> since it will cancel out in the end. So I picked "kg x
> ft^2/sec^2",

Except, mixing two different systems of measurements, like
you did, is a fundamental mistake, again a 'hallmark' of
your 'low-effort thinking'..

> but I could just have easily picked grams, ounces, slugs,
> or pounds. (Although, strictly speaking a pound is a measure of weight,
> not mass). You see, all objects accelerate at same rate independent of
> mass.

Indeed, but you still can't mix them together however you please..

> So now we have energy = 75,382,059 kg * (ft/sec)^2 which equals
> 1/2MV^2. Dividing out the 1/2M and we have
>
> V^2 = 150,764,118 (ft/sec) ^2 OR
> V = 12,278 ft/sec

Still the wrong answer, owing to you substituting "g" for
G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2], which you should integrate as:

U = GM(e) S [dy/(r+y)^2] = Gm(e) * [-1/(r+y)], from r+y to r..

..with the negative sign indicating that the force of
gravitational acceleration acts in the negative direction
of the y-axis..

The constants are:

G = 6.674 * 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2 (or (m^3)/(kg*s^2))
Me, the mass of the Earth = 5.97 * 10^24 (kg)
r = 6378 km

and the initial height, along the y-axis is y(o) = 804 km

Your mistake is readily self-evident, you "blotched" your
"psychics problem" again! And you're still bragging about it!?

Wow, you 'tea-potty' zealots really are as stupid as your
signage and pompous pronouncements indicate you are..

--
"What to know what it is?"

"Hmm, you right away from that Kurt. Why is that?"

"I posted my answers, hoe could you mis them?"

"When you plagairized those equations you made one glaring error."

"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"

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, Salty Stan <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 6, 11:08 pm, "Slackjaw" <Capt...@OklahomaSpaceAlliance.com> wrote:
>>
>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:

>>>
>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>>
>>>>> On 5/5/2013 6:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>>
>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 5:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>>>>>>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 2:02 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.........

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I
>> used.

Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]

>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
>> out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.

So now, your 'equation' now reads as:

U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]

Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..

Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..

> Ready, aim, fire!

You're shooting blanks again, I see..

--
"What to know what it is?"

"Hmm, you right away from that Kurt. Why is that?"

"I posted my answers, hoe could you mis them?"

"When you plagairized those equations you made one glaring error."

"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"

[Salty Stan]

On May 7, 9:16 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 11:08 pm, "Slackjaw" <Capt...@OklahomaSpaceAlliance.com> wrote:
>
> >> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>

> >>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> >>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>

> >>>>> On 5/5/2013 6:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> >>>>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>

> >>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 5:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> >>>>>>>> Man of Mind noted the careless histrionics and evasions posted by:
>

> >>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 2:02 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus. I took a
shortcut and looked up the formula on the internet, it took me all of
30 seconds.On this website

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body

I found this formula description: Instantaneous velocity \ v_i\ of a
falling object that has travelled distance \ d\ on a planet with mass
\ m\ and radius \ r\ (used for large fall distances where \ g\ can
change significantly):

V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me * (1/r - 1/r+d))

I can't use the original symbols, so I did the best I could to
translate into text. But that's OK, you can look it up yourself
Kurtie.

Now using the constants Kurt provided (thanks for that)

d = 804km * 1000 = 804,000 m
r = 6378 km * 1000 = 6,378,000 m
so
(1/r - 1/r+d) = 1.755E-08

Therefore
V = SQRT ( 2 * 6.674 * 10^-11 * 5.97 * 10^24 (kg) * 1.755E-08)

V = 3739.89 m/s

translating into feet by X 3.38 ft/m we get

V = 12,266 ft/sec

Well, lo and behold, isn't THAT the same answer you got, Slackjaw?!

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 9:43 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 7, 9:16 am, Man of Mind pointed out the mistakes posted by:
>>
>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>

>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
.....

>> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>>
>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I used.
>>
>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>
>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
>>>> out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>>
>> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>>
>> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>>
>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..

*>cricket.wav<*

Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking' of the right-wing..

>>> Ready, aim, fire!
>>
>> You're shooting blanks again, I see..
>
> Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus.

Yup, you took a short-cut, synonymous with your usual "low-effort
thinking', yes..

> and looked up the formula on the internet, it took me all of
> 30 seconds.On this website

And?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
>
> I found this formula description: Instantaneous velocity \ v_i\ of a
> falling object that has travelled distance

So, that's the velocity, not the potential energy..

> V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me * (1/r - 1/r+d))
>
> I can't use the original symbols

You apparently can't use Newton's equation, either..

> Therefore
> V = SQRT ( 2 * 6.674 * 10^-11 * 5.97 * 10^24 (kg) * 1.755E-08)

That's for instantaneous velocity, not potential energy..

> Well, lo and behold, isn't THAT the same answer

Yup, and still wrong..

--
"What to know what it is?"

"Hmm, you right away from that Kurt. Why is that?"

"I posted my answers, hoe could you mis them?"

"When you plagairized those equations you made one glaring error."

"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"

"You don't don't the difference between a typo and a grammar mistake?"

"Sigh, there are other people are smarter than you. Get over it."

"I also posted a correction - once I found I made a mistake, I stop
doing it."

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

"I can't help but notice how it seems liberals' posts are full

of grammar and spelling mistake, as if they can't write above
a fifth-grade level."

[Salty Stan]

On May 7, 11:27 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 9:43 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

> >>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
> >>>> out of Wiki)  has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>
> >> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>
> >>    U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]

LOL - wrong again Kurt.

>
> >> Way to go, lads..  You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
> >> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
> >> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..

Just because you don't understand it Kurt, doesn't mean it's wrong.

>
> *>cricket.wav<*
>
> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking' of the right-wing..
>
> >>> Ready, aim, fire!
>

> >>> Ka-POW - and the U.S.S. Dumb Kurt is shot down in a ball of flame.

>
> > Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus.
>
> Yup, you took a short-cut,

Maybe it's the lazy way, but it was faster.

> synonymous with your usual "low-effort
> thinking', yes..

By "low-effort thinking" you mean outsmarting Kurt Lochner, then yes.

>
> > and looked up the formula on the internet, it took me all of
> > 30 seconds.On this website
>
> And?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
>
> > I found this formula description: Instantaneous velocity \ v_i\ of a
> > falling object that has travelled distance
>
> So, that's the velocity, not the potential energy..

Duhhhhh, yeah Kurtie that's right -

One of the questions was what would be the velocity. What do you think
the question was?

>
> > V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me  * (1/r - 1/r+d))
>
> > I can't use the original symbols
>
> You apparently can't use Newton's equation, either..

Duhhhh, Kurtie, why would I need "Newton's equation" when I have the
formula right in front of me? Care to explain that?

>
> > Therefore
> > V = SQRT ( 2 * 6.674 * 10^-11 * 5.97 * 10^24 (kg) * 1.755E-08)
>
> That's for instantaneous velocity,

Duhhhh, Kurtie, yeah, that's what I want to calculate.

> not potential energy..

Duhhhh, Kurtie, why do you want the potential energy?

>
> > Well, lo and behold, isn't THAT the same answer you got Slackjaw?
>
> Yup, and still wrong..

So Kurt you're saying this formula from the Wiki page is WRONG?!

Steve, are you seeing this?

[Salty Stan]

Oh I forgot -

Kurtie you just got PWNED big time!

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 11:48 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 7, 11:27 am, Man of Mind pointed out the mistakes posted by:

>>
>> On 5/7/2013 9:43 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> On May 7, 9:16 am, Man of Mind pointed out the mistakes posted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.......

>>>> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>>>>
>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I used.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>>

>>>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
>>>>>> out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>>>>
>>>> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>>>>
>>>> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>
> LOL - wrong again

Nope, you're just being ambitiously ignorant..

>>>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>>>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>>>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>>

>> *>cricket.wav<*
>>
>> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking' of the right-wing..
>

> Just because you don't understand it

I "understand it" much better than you, but you're just
being an asshole about it.. Your loss..

>>>>> Ready, aim, fire!
>>>>
>>>> You're shooting blanks again, I see..
>>>

>>> Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus.
>>
>> Yup, you took a short-cut,
>
> Maybe it's the lazy way, but it was faster.

Yeah, consistent with the rest of your 'low-effort thinking'..

>> Yup, you took a short-cut, synonymous with your usual "low-effort

>> thinking', yes..
>
> By "low-effort thinking" you mean outsmarting

..yourself, yes!

>>> and looked up the formula on the internet, it took me all of
>>> 30 seconds.On this website
>>
>> And?
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
>>>
>>> I found this formula description: Instantaneous velocity \ v_i\ of a
>>> falling object that has travelled distance
>>
>> So, that's the velocity, not the potential energy..
>
> Duhhhhh

Need a drool cup?

> One of the questions was what would be the velocity

As always, you still haven't calculated the value correctly..

>>> V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me * (1/r - 1/r+d))
>>>
>>> I can't use the original symbols
>>
>> You apparently can't use Newton's equation, either..
>
> Duhhhh

Still unable to avoid the wrong answer with your 'low-effort thinking'?

>> That's for instantaneous velocity, not potential energy..
>
> Duhhhh

Still think they're the same thing, hunh?

>>> Well, lo and behold, isn't THAT the same answer
>>

>> Yup, and still wrong..
>
> So Kurt you're saying this formula from

I'm saying that you're still working your 'psychics problem'
*WRONG*, and that's the result of your 'short-cuts' you've
chosen, which demonstrates how much your 'low-effort thinking'
keeps fouling you up..

Here, work it this way:

> the equation reads: (Have to make do without symbols)
>
> S Gma/(r + x)^2 dx = potential energy.

Nope..

As I said, integrating that, you should have gotten:

U = GM(e) S [dy/(r+y)^2] = Gm(e) * [-1/(r+y)], from r+y to r..

..with the negative sign indicating that the force of
gravitational acceleration acts in the negative direction
of the y-axis..

The constants are:

G = 6.674 * 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2 (or (m^3)/(kg*s^2))
Me, the mass of the Earth = 5.97 * 10^24 (kg)
r = 6378 km

and the initial height, along the y-axis is y(o) = 804 km

Get back to me when you've worked it this way, cupcakes..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> On May 7, 10:43 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> On May 7, 9:16 am, Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>
>>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
....

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I
>>>>> used.
>>>
>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>
>>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
>>>>> out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>>>
>>> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>>>
>>> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>>>
>>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>>>
>>> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..
>>
>>>> Ready, aim, fire!
>>
>>> You're shooting blanks again, I see..
>>
>> Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus.

Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem' again..

>> I took a shortcut and looked up [another] formula on [wiki]

Yup, you took shortcuts, and deliberately tried to deflect away
from how you 'blotched' your very own 'psychics problem'..

Keep whining about it, it makes you 'tea-potty' clowns look like
the petty, venal, brown-shirted 'useful idiots' you really are..

Thanks for your part in this public demonstration, l'il buddy..

--
"What to know what it is?"

"Hmm, you right away from that Kurt. Why is that?"

"I posted my answers, hoe could you mis them?"

"When you plagairized those equations you made one glaring error."

"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"

"You don't don't the difference between a typo and a grammar mistake?"

"Sigh, there are other people are smarter than you. Get over it."

"I also posted a correction - once I found I made a mistake, I stop
doing it."

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

"I can't help but notice how it seems liberals' posts are full

of grammar and spelling mistake, as if they can't write above
a fifth-grade level."

[Salty Stan]

On May 7, 1:49 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:

>

>
> Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem' again..

Poor, dumb ol' Kurtie...still can't get over being PWNED so badly.
Here's my solution again, if you don't understand it, have someone
explain it to you:

V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me * (1/r - 1/r+d))

BTW, did you look up the original formula on that website I provided?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body

Now plugging in YOUR constants that YOU provided

d = 804km * 1000 = 804,000 m
r = 6378 km * 1000 = 6,378,000 m

(1/r - 1/r+d) = 1.755E-08

V = SQRT ( 2 * 6.674 * 10^-11 * 5.97 * 10^24 (kg) * 1.755E-08)
V = 3739.89 m/s

OR
V = 12,266 ft/sec

And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer. (Hint Kurtie,
it's not 17,000 ft/sec)

Now let's see how you are going to squirm out of it - perhaps you'll
now say your constants were wrong, or that formula is incorrect?

Which will it be?

[Salty Stan]

Hmmm, Kurtie has gotten awfully quiet all of a sudden.

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined loudly:
>
> On May 7, 1:49 pm, Man of Mind restored the original text/context avoided by:

>>
>> On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> On May 7, 10:43 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> On May 7, 9:16 am, Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

......

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I
>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
>>>>>>> out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>>>>>
>>>>> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>>>>>
>>>>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>>>>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>>>>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..
>>>>
>>>>>> Ready, aim, fire!
>>>>
>>>>> You're shooting blanks again, I see..
>>>>
>>>> Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus.
>>

>> Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem' again..
>
> Poor, dumb ol'

You still don't understand how you got the velocity, but not
the right answer to your original 'psychics problem'? Not
a problem. Like I said, depending upon your level of
histrionics and premature boasting, I'll walk you back through
your "repeatably" mistakes and mistakes, as I see fit..

>>>> I took a shortcut and looked up [another] formula on [wiki]
>>
>> Yup, you took shortcuts, and deliberately tried to deflect away
>> from how you 'blotched' your very own 'psychics problem'..
>>
>> Keep whining about it, it makes you 'tea-potty' clowns look like
>> the petty, venal, brown-shirted 'useful idiots' you really are..
>>
>> Thanks for your part in this public demonstration, l'il buddy..
>

> And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer

*>LOL!<* I don't like being proven wrong, because you can't
seem to learn from your mistakes, eh?

> Now let's see how [I am] going to squirm out of it

Well, you've already switched to another formula that gives you
a similar answer, having been exposed for the 'low-effort thinking'
that it is, but your units are still *WRONG*, you silly right-winger..

Funny how you keep avoiding how you "blotched" your substitutiond
into that previous mistake, hunh? Wonder why that is..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 1:32 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> On May 7, 2:17 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined earlier:
>>
>> On May 7, 1:49 pm, Man of Mind was laughing at the histrionics posted by:
>>>
>>> On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

>>>
>>> Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem' again..
>>
>> Poor, dumb ol'

Still can't figure out what you're doing wrong, instead just
posting the same wrong answer over and over again, eh?

How'd that work out for you the first time around, cupcakes?

Oh, you got caught making a substitution that invalidated your answers..

[Salty Stan]

Still working on that, Kurtie?

[Salty Stan]

On May 7, 3:11 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined loudly:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 1:49 pm, Man of Mind restored the original text/context avoided by:
>

> >> On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> >>> On May 7, 10:43 am, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> >>>> On May 7, 9:16 am, Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>

> >>>>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> >>>>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> >>>>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>

> >>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> ......
>
> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>

Actually Kurtie, I made no substitution, I used a formula to calculate
the velocity. I guess that's your reading comprehension problem again.

>
> > Poor, dumb ol' Kurt
>
> ...still don't understand how you got the velocity,

Check out that link I posted, it shows the formula.

>
> I don't like being proven wrong

It's OK, you can learn to live with it. Happens to everyone, even me!

> > Now let's see how I am going to squirm out of it

Evasion, it looks like.

>
> Well, you've already switched to another formula that gives you
> a similar answer,

Now if two different approach yield the same answer, what does that
tell you?

> having been exposed for the 'low-effort thinking'

Kurt busting?

> that it is, but your units are still *WRONG*, you silly right-winger..
>
> Funny how you keep avoiding how you "blotched" your substitutiond

"substitutiond" ...LOL

> into that previous mistake, hunh?  Wonder why that is..

My case is airtight, so you can't dispute it. But flounder all you
like.

>
> --

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 2:32 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined loudly:
>
> On May 7, 2:17 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was squirming when:

>>
>> On May 7, 1:49 pm, Man of Mind restored the original text/context avoided by:
>>>>

>>>> On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
..
>>> Now let's see how [I am] going to squirm out of it

>>
>> Well, you've already switched to another formula that gives you

>> a similar answer, having been exposed for the 'low-effort thinking'

>> that it is, but your units are still *WRONG*, you silly right-winger..
>>
>> Funny how you keep avoiding how you "blotched" your substitutiond

>> into that previous mistake, hunh? Wonder why that is..
>

> Still working on that

*>LOL!<* Thought so..

[Salty Stan]

When you be addressing this, Kurt?

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 3:19 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
> On May 7, 3:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>> On May 7, 2:17 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

..
>>>>> Now let's see how [I am] going to squirm out of it
>>>>
>>>> Well, you've already switched to another formula that gives you
>>>> a similar answer, having been exposed for the 'low-effort thinking'
>>>> that it is, but your units are still *WRONG*, you silly right-winger..
>>>>
>>>> Funny how you keep avoiding how you "blotched" your substitution

>>>> into that previous mistake, hunh? Wonder why that is..
>>>
>>> Still working on that
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Thought so..
>

> Still working on that

Funny how you keep avoiding how you "blotched" your substitution

into that previous mistake, hunh? Wonder why that is..

When will you be addressing how you've "blotched" your own
formula twice now? Should I go on and work it for you again?

Or, would it be more entertaining to watch you flail and whine
about how you don't recognize what you did wrong this time?

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 2:49 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed again:

> On May 7, 3:11 pm, Man of Mind restored the original text/context avoided by:
>>
>> On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined loudly:
...

>>> And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer
>>

>> *>LOL!<* You don't like being proven wrong, because you can't

>> seem to learn from your mistakes, eh?
>>

>>> Now let's see how [I am] going to squirm out of it
>>

>> Well, you've already switched to another formula that gives you

>> a similar answer, having been exposed for the 'low-effort thinking'

>> that it is, but your units are still *WRONG*, you silly right-winger..
>>
>> Funny how you keep avoiding how you "blotched" your substitutiond

>> into that previous mistake, hunh? Wonder why that is..
>
> My case is airtight

Nope..

You still don't understand how you got the velocity, but not
the right answer to your original 'psychics problem'? Not

a problem. Like I said, depending upon your level of cheap

histrionics and premature boasting, I'll walk you back through
your "repeatably" mistakes and mistakes, as I see fit..

Deal with it, in the meantime.. *>LOL!<*

[Salty Stan]

Why do you keep running away from this, Kurt?

---
" I don't like being proven wrong " - Kurtie Lochner

[Salty Stan]

On May 7, 5:09 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 2:49 PM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed again:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 3:11 pm, Man of Mind restored the original text/context avoided by:
>

> >> On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined loudly:

> ...
> >>> And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer
>
> >> *>LOL!<* You don't like being proven wrong, because you can't
> >> seem to learn from your mistakes, eh?
>
> >>> Now let's see how [I am] going to squirm out of it
>
> >> Well, you've already switched to another formula that gives you
> >> a similar answer, having been exposed for the 'low-effort thinking'
> >> that it is, but your units are still *WRONG*, you silly right-winger..
>
> >> Funny how you keep avoiding how you "blotched" your substitutiond
> >> into that previous mistake, hunh?  Wonder why that is..
>
> > My case is airtight
>
> Nope..
>

So Kurt, tell us...

Are your constants wrong?

Is the formula I used wrong?

The answer to each is Yes or No. Or you can prove yourself to be a
coward and run away again. (My prediction...)

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 4:12 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@fgmail.com> squirmed again:

> Why do

Still don't understand the difference between instantaneous velocity
and potential energy, hunh?

Funny how you keep avoiding how you "blotched" your substitution

into that previous mistake, hunh? Wonder why that is..

When will you be addressing how you've "blotched" your own
formula twice now? Should I go on and work it for you again?

Or, would it be more entertaining to watch you flail and whine
about how you don't recognize what you did wrong this time?

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 4:46 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

> Is the formula I used wrong?

Still don't understand the difference between "potential energy"
and "instantaneous velocity", do you? I suppose you don't get
how you get confused by the term 'kinetic energy' too?

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 2:15 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> On 5/7/2013 1:32 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>
>> On May 7, 2:17 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined earlier:
>>>
>>> On May 7, 1:49 pm, Man of Mind was laughing at the histrionics posted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>
>>>> Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem' again..
>>>
>>> Poor, dumb ol'
>
> Still can't figure out what you're doing wrong, instead just
> posting the same wrong answer over and over again, eh?
>
> How'd that work out for you the first time around, cupcakes?
>
> Oh, you got caught making a substitution that invalidated your answers..

"So, ever get an answer to that?" ..*>chuckling<*

[Slackjaw]

You know, when Kurt makes another cowardly retreat like this, it just
vindicates my opinion of his character, and of leftists in general.

I have yet to see one liberal on this NG with an ounce of integrity -
not once! It seems that accountability and responsibility are
exclusively conservative traits.

[Slackjaw]

I see why you're so bewildered - you're confusing Newton's law of
universal gravitation with his second law of motion (i.e. F = ma) and
the definition of Energy or "work" i.e. W = Fd.

Work can also be defined as an integral S Fdx - that's the form I used.
In this case F = m * a(x) where a(x) = g * 1 / (r + x)^2

At ground level, a(0) = 32.17 ft/sec^2, but that decreases with height.

This link will explain it to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29

>
> > > My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you
> > > copied out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>
> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>
> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>
> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>
> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..
>
> > Ready, aim, fire!
>
> You're shooting blanks again, I see..



--

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 9:25 PM, slapped raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

> You know, when Kurt makes another cowardly retreat

You know, when you wave around your 'straw man' pseudo-arguments
like this, it makes right-wing 'tea-potty' advocates look like
petty, vindictive children throwing a temper tantrum..

> I have yet to see one liberal on this NG with an ounce of integrity

Really, and that's because no-one accepts your rationalizations
for your narrow-minded 'low-effort thinking' as having even a
shred of credibility. Then, you babble your inane excuses for
this immature behavior to one of your sock-puppets with all the
smug condescension you can muster, like anyone is fooled..

So, all that aside, what are you attempting to deflect attention
from now?

[Slackjaw]

Yes it is, thanks for the confirmation!

I don't think Kurt will be happy about this - he may have to be put on
suicide watch.

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 9:36 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind noted the efforts to munge the text/context by:
>>
>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.....

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what
>>>> I used.
>>
>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>
> I see why you're so bewildered

Nope, you're the one that's 'bewildered'..

> - you're confusing Newton's law of universal gravitation
> with his second law of motion

Nope..

> Work can also be defined as an integral S Fdx - that's the form I used.
> In this case F = m * a(x) where a(x) = g * 1 / (r + x)^2

I've already pointed out how this falls apart, slapped fraud..

Read it again..

>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you
>>>> copied out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>>
>> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>>
>> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>>
>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>>
>> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..
>>
>>> Ready, aim, fire!
>>
>> You're shooting blanks again, I see..

*>cricket.wav<*

--
"What to know what it is?"

"Hmm, you right away from that Kurt. Why is that?"

"I posted my answers, hoe could you mis them?"

"When you plagairized those equations you made one glaring error."

"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"

"You don't don't the difference between a typo and a grammar mistake?"

"Sigh, there are other people are smarter than you. Get over it."

"I also posted a correction - once I found I made a mistake, I stop
doing it."

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

"I can't help but notice how it seems liberals' posts are full

of grammar and spelling mistake, as if they can't write above
a fifth-grade level."

[Slackjaw]

Salty Stan wrote:

> On May 7, 1:49�pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:
> >
>
> >
> > Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem' again..
>
> Poor, dumb ol' Kurtie...still can't get over being PWNED so badly.
> Here's my solution again, if you don't understand it, have someone
> explain it to you:
>
> V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me * (1/r - 1/r+d))
> BTW, did you look up the original formula on that website I provided?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
>
> Now plugging in YOUR constants that YOU provided
>
> d = 804km * 1000 = 804,000 m
> r = 6378 km * 1000 = 6,378,000 m
> (1/r - 1/r+d) = 1.755E-08
> V = SQRT ( 2 * 6.674 * 10^-11 * 5.97 * 10^24 (kg) * 1.755E-08)
> V = 3739.89 m/s
> OR
> V = 12,266 ft/sec
>
> And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer. (Hint Kurtie,
> it's not 17,000 ft/sec)

Well, that's pretty solid - Kurt won't be able to poke a hole in it.

I suspect he will do what he always does when beaten - he'll just snip
it and pretend it doesn't exist.

>
> Now let's see how you are going to squirm out of it - perhaps you'll
> now say your constants were wrong, or that formula is incorrect?
>
> Which will it be?

I just thought of something - if Kurt really had a degree in physics,
wouldn't he have known about this formula beforehand?

[Slackjaw]

Salty Stan wrote:

> On May 7, 11:27�ｿｽam, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/7/2013 9:43 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
> > >>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you

> > copied >>>> out of Wiki) �ｿｽhas S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.

> >
> > >> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
> >

> > >> �ｿｽ �ｿｽU = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]

>
> LOL - wrong again Kurt.
>
> >

> > >> Way to go, lads.. �ｿｽYou "blotched" your own 'answer' right there

> > >> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
> > >> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>
> Just because you don't understand it Kurt, doesn't mean it's wrong.
>
> >
> > *>cricket.wav<*
> >
> > Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking' of the right-wing..
> >
> > >>> Ready, aim, fire!
> >
> > >>> Ka-POW - and the U.S.S. Dumb Kurt is shot down in a ball of
> > flame.
> >
> > > Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus.
> >
> > Yup, you took a short-cut,
>
> Maybe it's the lazy way, but it was faster.
>
> > synonymous with your usual "low-effort
> > thinking', yes..
>
> By "low-effort thinking" you mean outsmarting Kurt Lochner, then yes.
>
> >
> > > and looked up the formula on the internet, it took me all of
> > > 30 seconds.On this website
> >
> > And?
> >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
> >
> > > I found this formula description: Instantaneous velocity \ v_i\
> > > of a falling object that has travelled distance
> >
> > So, that's the velocity, not the potential energy..
>
>
> Duhhhhh, yeah Kurtie that's right -
>
> One of the questions was what would be the velocity. What do you think
> the question was?
>
> >

> > > V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me �ｿｽ* (1/r - 1/r+d))

> >
> > > I can't use the original symbols
> >
> > You apparently can't use Newton's equation, either..
>
> Duhhhh, Kurtie, why would I need "Newton's equation" when I have the
> formula right in front of me? Care to explain that?
>
> >
> > > Therefore
> > > V = SQRT ( 2 * 6.674 * 10^-11 * 5.97 * 10^24 (kg) * 1.755E-08)
> >
> > That's for instantaneous velocity,
>
> Duhhhh, Kurtie, yeah, that's what I want to calculate.
>
> > not potential energy..
>
> Duhhhh, Kurtie, why do you want the potential energy?

So...ever get an answer to that?

>
> >
> > > Well, lo and behold, isn't THAT the same answer you got Slackjaw?
> >
> > Yup, and still wrong..

Well, since Kurt can't disprove your calculation, he'll fall back on
this.

>
> So Kurt you're saying this formula from the Wiki page is WRONG?!
>
> Steve, are you seeing this?
> >
> > --

[Slackjaw]

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 5/7/2013 9:36 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
> >
> > Man of Mind noted the efforts to munge the text/context by:
> > >
> >>On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
> > > >
> >>>On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
> > > > >
> > > > > Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
> > > > > >
> >>>>>On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com>
> squirmed: .....
>
> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>
> > > > > G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is
> > > > > what I used.
> > >
> > > Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
> >
> > I see why you're so bewildered
>
> Nope, you're the one that's 'bewildered'..
>
> > - you're confusing Newton's law of universal gravitation
> > with his second law of motion
>
> Nope..
>
> > Work can also be defined as an integral S Fdx - that's the form I
> > used. In this case F = m * a(x) where a(x) = g * 1 / (r + x)^2
>
> I've already pointed out how this falls apart, slapped fraud..

Sorry, no - this website validates my equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29

Read it again..

> > > > > My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you
> > > > > copied out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
> > >
> > > So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
> > >
> >> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
> > >
> > > Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
> > > by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
> > > have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
> > >
> > > Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..
> > >
> > > > Ready, aim, fire!
> > >
> > > You're shooting blanks again, I see..
>
> *>cricket.wav<*



--

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 9:42 PM, slapped raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind was noting the increased pitch of the histrionics posted by:

>>
>> On 5/7/2013 9:25 PM, slapped raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>

> You know, when Kurt makes another cowardly retreat like this

I'm right here, buckwheat..

You know, when you wave around your 'straw man' pseudo-arguments
like this, it makes right-wing 'tea-potty' advocates look like
petty, vindictive children throwing a temper tantrum..

> I have yet to see one liberal on this NG with an ounce of integrity

Really, and that's because no-one accepts your rationalizations
for your narrow-minded 'low-effort thinking' as having even a
shred of credibility. Then, you babble your inane excuses for
this immature behavior to one of your sock-puppets with all the
smug condescension you can muster, like anyone is fooled..

So, all that aside, what are you attempting to deflect attention

from now? Wasn't it something to do with how your 'tea-potty'
talking points about man-made climate changes getting refuted?

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 9:48 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> I just thought of something

Don't hurt yourself..

> if Kurt really had a degree in physics, wouldn't he have known
> about this formula beforehand?

Where you substituted "g" for "G" instead? Yeah, I just thought
I'd let you boast some more about how you solved your 'psychics'
problem using the variable, instead of the constant..

This is how your 'equation' would read:

U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]

*>LOL!<*

Really set you off into new level of denials and histrionics, eh?

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 9:48 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>

> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined and squirmed again:
..

>> And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer. (Hint Kurtie,
>> it's not 17,000 ft/sec)
>
> Well, that's pretty solid - Kurt won't be able to poke a hole in it.

You're still trying to pass off the equation for the instantaneous
velocity as being the same thing as the gravitational potential
energy, eh? Wow, that's really going to work out wrong for you..

But, like most of your 'tea-potty' short-cuts, it's not correct,
and all your crowing and premature bragging won't change that..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 9:52 PM, slapped raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
...

>>>> Well, lo and behold, isn't THAT the same answer you got Slackjaw?
>>>
>>> Yup, and still wrong..
>
> Well, since Kurt can't disprove your calculation

And the 'instantaneous velocity' (Vi) equals the gravitational
potential energy precisely how?

You might want to think that over, before you crow and brag
too much more. You know I have to walk you through the rest
of your mathematical blunders, so why add to your humiliations?

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 9:55 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind was amused by the excuses and histrionics exhibiited by:

>>
>> On 5/7/2013 9:36 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind noted the efforts to munge the text/context by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.......

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is
>>>>>> what I used.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>
>>> I see why you're so bewildered
>>
>> Nope, you're the one that's 'bewildered'..
>>
>>> - you're confusing Newton's law of universal gravitation
>>> with his second law of motion
>>
>> Nope..
>>
>>> Work can also be defined as an integral S Fdx - that's the form I
>>> used. In this case F = m * a(x) where a(x) = g * 1 / (r + x)^2
>>
>> I've already pointed out how this falls apart, slapped fraud..
>
> Sorry, no

Sorry, yes.. You can't substitute "g", a variable in this
instance, back into the equation as a 'constant' ("G")..

> - this website validates my equation

*>LOL!<*

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29

Try this one instead, slapped fraud..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy#General_formula

>>>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you
>>>>>> copied out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>>>>
>>>> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>>>>
>>>> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>>>>
>>>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>>>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>>>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>>>>
>>>> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..
>>>>
>>>>> Ready, aim, fire!
>>>>
>>>> You're shooting blanks again, I see..
>>
>> *>cricket.wav<*

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 10:13 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 7, 10:42 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>>
>>> On 5/7/2013 9:25 PM, slapped raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

....
>>>> You know, when Kurt makes another cowardly retreat like this

>>>
>>> You know, when you wave around your 'straw man' pseudo-arguments
>>> like this, it makes right-wing 'tea-potty' advocates look like
>>> petty, vindictive children throwing a temper tantrum..
>>>
>>>> I have yet to see one liberal on this NG with an ounce of integrity
>>>
>>> Really, and that's because no-one accepts your rationalizations
>>> for your narrow-minded 'low-effort thinking' as having even a
>>> shred of credibility. Then, you babble your inane excuses for
>>> this immature behavior to one of your sock-puppets with all the
>>> smug condescension you can muster, like anyone is fooled..
>>
>>> So, all that aside, what are you attempting to deflect attention
>>> from now?

Oh, it was the man-made climate change pseudo-science you
tried posting a while back, wasn't it..

Funny how you've run away from that discussion, and attempted
to cast aspersions about my science education. Trouble is, you
have only a 'google's grasp' of the subject of physics..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 10:18 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 7, 10:48 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed and wailed again:
...

>>> And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer

Nope, the only thing that's "undeniable" is your desperation
to come up with something that makes your 'answer' look correct,
without once touching on how you've already bragged for years
about how you solved your 'psychics problem' but really didn't..

>> Well, that's pretty solid

Still funny how you have to talk to yourself, kid..

>> I suspect he will do what he always does when beaten

When did you 'beat' anyone, little 'tea-potty' poltroon?

C'mon, let's hear about it some more..

Keep bragging and sagging, it's funny to watch you squirm..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 10:18 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed and wailed impotently:

>>
>> On May 7, 10:48 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

...

>>> I suspect he will do what he always does when beaten - he'll just
>>> snip it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Like you do when you've been proven wrong? Perish the thought,
I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you're exhibiting
all the significant hallmarks of a sociopathic liar..

And, you've just admitted that you simply took a 'short-cut',
instead of actually working your 'psychics problem' as you've
bragged about for years now. I think we've made some progress
here, where you've actually admitted that you didn't do something
you've claimed to have done, and now you're running away and
foaming at the mouth about how your mistakes are 'confirmed'
by yet another example of how poorly you understand even the
simplest concepts in physics..

Good work there, kid.. I couldn't do it without your unwitting help..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> On May 7, 1:49 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>
>> On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> On May 7, 10:43 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> On May 7, 9:16 am, Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:

>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
........

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I
>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>>>

>>>>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
>>>>>>> out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>>>>>
>>>>> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>>>>>
>>>>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>>>>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>>>>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..
>>>>
>>>>>> Ready, aim, fire!
>>>>
>>>>> You're shooting blanks again, I see..
>>>>

>>>> Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus.
>>

>> Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem' again..
>
> Poor, dumb ol'

Thanks for again showing me the 'short-cut' you used, instead
of actually solving your 'psychics problem' the way you were
pretending to have, and then couldn't show your work..

Thought so..

[Salty Stan]

On May 7, 10:48 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 9:36 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
>
>
>
> >>   U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>

Taking a hard look at this, I just realized: Kurt has "U", the
potential energy, equal to the force of gravitational attraction.

I still get surprised when he pulls a boner like this. I don't know
why, I should be used to it by now.

[Salty Stan]

On May 7, 11:46 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 10:18 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
>
>
> > faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed and wailed impotently:
>
> >> On May 7, 10:48 pm, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

> ...
> >>> I suspect he will do what he always does when beaten - he'll just
> >>> snip it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Bingo - you know him so well.

>
> Like you do when you've been proven wrong?  Perish the thought,
> I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you're exhibiting
> all the significant hallmarks of a sociopathic liar..
>
> And, you've just admitted that you simply took a 'short-cut',
> instead of actually working your 'psychics problem' as you've
> bragged about for years now.  I think we've made some progress
> here, where you've actually admitted that you didn't do something
> you've claimed to have done, and now you're running away and
> foaming at the mouth about how your mistakes are 'confirmed'
> by yet another example of how poorly you understand even the
> simplest concepts in physics..

Classic projection..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/8/2013 8:26 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>
>> On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> On May 7, 1:49 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 7, 10:43 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 7, 9:16 am, Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

..........

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

>>>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I
>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
>>>>>>>>> out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>>>>>>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>>>>>>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ready, aim, fire!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're shooting blanks again, I see..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem' again..
>>>
>>> Poor, dumb ol'
>>
>> Thanks for again showing me the 'short-cut' you used, instead
>> of actually solving your 'psychics problem' the way you were
>> pretending to have, and then couldn't show your work..
>

> Here ya go

Still trying to pretend you didn't lie or deflect away from
you previous mistakes?

[Salty Stan]

Here ya go Kurtie...

V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me * (1/r - 1/r+d))
BTW, did you look up the original formula on that website I provided?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body

Now plugging in YOUR constants that YOU provided
d = 804km * 1000 = 804,000 m
r = 6378 km * 1000 = 6,378,000 m
(1/r - 1/r+d) = 1.755E-08

V = SQRT ( 2 * 6.674 * 10^-11 * 5.97 * 10^24 (kg) * 1.755E-08)

V = 3739.89 m/s
OR
V = 12,266 ft/sec

So which step in my solution is incorrect? Or are you finally
admitting I got the right answer?

[Man of Mind]

On 5/8/2013 8:16 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> On May 7, 10:48 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed and wailed again:
...
>>> And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer

Nope, the only thing that's "undeniable" is your desperation
to come up with something that makes your 'answer' look correct,
without once touching on how you've already bragged for years
about how you solved your 'psychics problem' but really didn't..

>> Well, that's pretty solid

It's still funny how you have to talk to yourself, almost like
you were kind of insecure drooling right-wing moon-bat..

>> I suspect he will do what he always does when beaten

When did you 'beat' anyone, little 'tea-potty' poltroon?

C'mon, let's hear about it some more..

Keep bragging and sagging, it's funny to watch you squirm..

[Salty Stan]

On May 8, 12:29 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/2013 8:16 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 10:48 pm, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> >> faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed and wailed again:

> ...
> >>> And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer
>
> Nope, the only thing that's "undeniable" is your desperation
> to come up with something that makes your 'answer' look correct,
> without once touching on how you've already bragged for years
> about how you solved  your 'psychics problem' but really didn't..
>
> >> Well, that's pretty solid
>
> It's still funny how you have to talk to yourself, almost like
> you were kind of insecure drooling right-wing moon-bat..
>
> >> I suspect he will do what he always does when beaten
>
> When did you 'beat' anyone, little 'tea-potty' poltroon?
>
> C'mon, let's hear about it some more..
>
> Keep bragging and sagging, it's funny to watch you squirm..
>
> --

Here ya go Kurtie...

V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me * (1/r - 1/r+d))
BTW, did you look up the original formula on that website I provided?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body

Now plugging in YOUR constants that YOU provided
d = 804km * 1000 = 804,000 m
r = 6378 km * 1000 = 6,378,000 m
(1/r - 1/r+d) = 1.755E-08
V = SQRT ( 2 * 6.674 * 10^-11 * 5.97 * 10^24 (kg) * 1.755E-08)
V = 3739.89 m/s
OR
V = 12,266 ft/sec

[Man of Mind]

On 5/8/2013 8:15 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 7, 10:48 pm, Man of Mind pointed out the mistakes made by:

>>
>> On 5/7/2013 9:36 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind noted the efforts to munge the text/context by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.......

Again, here's where you made the wrong substitution:

>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what
>>>>>> I used.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>
>>> I see why you're so bewildered
>>
>> Nope, you're the one that's 'bewildered'..

And, apparently, you prefer to remain that way..

>>> - you're confusing Newton's law of universal gravitation
>>> with his second law of motion
>>
>> Nope..
>>
>>> Work can also be defined as an integral S Fdx - that's the form I used.
>>> In this case F = m * a(x) where a(x) = g * 1 / (r + x)^2

"a(x) = g * 1 / (r + x)^2", and you substituted "g" instead
of G*M(e).. Really slipshod "low-effort thinking' on your part..

I wonder how many bowls of Stupid you had to eat to get this..

>>>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you
>>>>>> copied out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.
>>>>
>>>> So now, your 'equation' now reads as:
>>>>

>>>> U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]
>>>>

>>>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>>>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>>>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>

> Taking a hard look at this, I just realized

As you can see above, it was *YOUR* mistake, hence you inadvertently
admitting to me that you didn't know how to work your 'psychics'
problem without taking a 'short-cut' so typical of your usual
'low-effort thinking'..

Congrats, you just got pwned by your own deliberate ignorance..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/8/2013 11:22 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind was taunting the deliberate ignorance of:
>> >
>>> On 5/8/2013 8:26 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 7, 1:49 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 7, 10:43 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 7, 9:16 am, Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2013 7:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 6, 11:08 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind corrected the mental short-cuts taken by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2013 9:38 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

.............

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

>>>>>>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17 ft/sec^2, which is what I
>>>>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My formula (which in mathematically equivalent to the one you copied
>>>>>>>>>>>> out of Wiki) has S m*f(a) dx where f(a) = g/(r + x)^2.

So now, your 'equation' now reads as:

U = (-G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2])/[(r+x)^2]

*>LOL!<* Then, you had admit that you used a 'short-cut', which
you copied from 'wiki', like you accused me of, my dear little
sociopathic, delusional right-wing 'tea-potty' poltroon..

Keep telling on yourself.. I'll check in on you later tonight,
so try not to fill your ego-diaper in the meantime..

>>>>>>>>>> Way to go, lads.. You "blotched" your own 'answer' right there
>>>>>>>>>> by substituting your variable (g) for the constant you should
>>>>>>>>>> have used (G*M(e)*m/(r+y)^2)..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ahhh, the joys of 'low-effort thinking'..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ready, aim, fire!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're shooting blanks again, I see..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, for my part, I didn't resort to integral calculus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem' again..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor, dumb ol'
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for again showing me the 'short-cut' you used, instead
>>>>> of actually solving your 'psychics problem' the way you were
>>>>> pretending to have, and then couldn't show your work..
>>>>

>>>> Here ya go
>>>
>>> Still trying to pretend you didn't lie or deflect away from
>>> you previous mistakes?
>>>
>>> Thought so..
>>

>> So which step in my solution is incorrect?

I don't have time to tutor you further, if you don't want to admit
how you "blotched" your own 'psychics problem' that you've bragged
for years that you had already 'solved', but now admit that you
looked up a 'short-cut' and 'copied it from wiki' like you accused
me of..

Congrats, your lies went nowhere, again..

[Slackjaw]

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 5/8/2013 11:22 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
> >
> >On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
> > >
> >

-

> > >
> > > So which step in my solution is incorrect?
>
> I don't have time to tutor you further,

Maybe you could simplify it further so Kurt can understand it?

> if you don't want to admit
> how you "blotched" your own 'psychics problem' that you've bragged
> for years that you had already 'solved', but now admit that you
> looked up a 'short-cut' and 'copied it from wiki' like you accused
> me of..
>
> Congrats, your lies went nowhere, again..



--

[Slackjaw]

Salty Stan wrote:

> On May 7, 5:09�pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/7/2013 2:49 PM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed
> > again:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 7, 3:11 pm, Man of Mind restored the original text/context
> > > avoided by:
> >
> > >> On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined
> > loudly: ...

> > >>> And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer
> >

> > >> *>LOL!<* You don't like being proven wrong, because you can't
> > >> seem to learn from your mistakes, eh?
> >
> > >>> Now let's see how [I am] going to squirm out of it
> >
> > >> Well, you've already switched to another formula that gives you
> > >> a similar answer, having been exposed for the 'low-effort
> > thinking' >> that it is, but your units are still WRONG, you silly
> > right-winger..
> >
> > >> Funny how you keep avoiding how you "blotched" your substitutiond
> > >> into that previous mistake, hunh? �Wonder why that is..
> >
> > > My case is airtight
> >
> > Nope..
> >
> So Kurt, tell us...
>
> Are your constants wrong?
>
> Is the formula I used wrong?
>
> The answer to each is Yes or No. Or you can prove yourself to be a
> coward and run away again. (My prediction...)

prediction fulfilled.

[Slackjaw]

Salty Stan wrote:

> On May 7, 3:32�pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 7, 2:17�pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 7, 1:49�pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 5/7/2013 11:49 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:

> >
> > > > Yup, and 'succeeded' in "blotching" your 'psychics problem'
> > > > again..
> >

> > > Poor, dumb ol' Kurtie...still can't get over being PWNED so badly.
> > > Here's my solution again, if you don't understand it, have someone
> > > explain it to you:
> >

> > > V = SQRT ( 2 * G * Me �* (1/r - 1/r+d))
> > > BTW, did you look up the original formula on that website I
> > > provided?
> >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
> >
> > > Now plugging in �YOUR constants that YOU provided
> >
> > > d = 804km * 1000 = 804,000 m
> > > r = �6378 km * 1000 = 6,378,000 m
> > > (1/r - 1/r+d) = 1.755E-08
> > > V = SQRT ( 2 * 6.674 * 10^-11 * 5.97 * 10^24 (kg) * 1.755E-08)
> > > V = 3739.89 m/s
> > > � � OR
> > > V = 12,266 ft/sec
> >

> > > And here is the undeniable proof of the correct answer. (Hint
> > > Kurtie, it's not 17,000 ft/sec)
> >

> > > Now let's see how you are going to squirm out of it - perhaps
> > > you'll now say your constants were wrong, or that formula is
> > > incorrect?
> >
> > > Which will it be?
> >

> > Still working on that, Kurtie?
>
> When you be addressing this, Kurt?

I have seen many disreputable characters on the NG, but none as
cowardly as Kurt.

[Man of Mind]

On 5/8/2013 9:59 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind continued exploiting the clumsy lies posted by:

>>
>> On 5/8/2013 11:22 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>

>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind was taunting the deliberate ignorance of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/2013 8:26 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

.......

>>>>>>> Thanks for again showing me the 'short-cut' you used, instead
>>>>>>> of actually solving your 'psychics problem' the way you were
>>>>>>> pretending to have, and then couldn't show your work..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here ya go
>>>>>
>>>>> Still trying to pretend you didn't lie or deflect away from
>>>>> you previous mistakes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thought so..
>>>>

>>>> So which step in my solution is incorrect?
>>

>> I don't have time to tutor you further, if you don't want to admit

>> how you "blotched" your own 'psychics problem' that you've bragged
>> for years that you had already 'solved', but now admit that you
>> looked up a 'short-cut' and 'copied it from wiki' like you accused
>> me of..
>>
>> Congrats, your lies went nowhere, again..
>

> Maybe you could simplify it further

Okay, you lied about having 'solved' the physics problem you
challenged me with, owing your previous insinuations about
my degree in physics. You then posted answers and similarly
inflated bafflegab/word-magic' to make it appear that you
actually could solve for the final velocity and elapsed time.

When I worked this through on paper, your 'answers' appeared
to be in error, in several ways. After much flailing about
and defaming remarks, you admitted that you simply copied
an equation for 'instantaneous velocity' and can't seem to
get it through your narrow-minded, ambitiously ignorant,
'tea-potty' head that you didn't work the problem like you
were bragging about, nor did you even get the correct answers..

I'll let you stew and fume about that some more today. It's
still fun watching you squirm because of your own mistakes..

Several examples of your 'low-effort thinking' follow..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/9/2013 11:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 8, 1:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> On May 8, 12:56 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> On May 8, 12:22 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>

>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

......

>>>>>> Thanks for again showing me the 'short-cut' you used, instead
>>>>>> of actually solving your 'psychics problem' the way you were
>>>>>> pretending to have, and then couldn't show your work..

.....

>>>>> So which step in my solution is incorrect?

The first, because of your habit of 'low-effort thinking'..

> Even yet, still more

It's called "work". You should try it sometime..

[Slackjaw]

I would not dignify that childish prattle with a response.

> challenged me with, owing your previous insinuations about
> my degree in physics.

There are no insinuations about it - I'm saying your claim of a physics
degree is a steaming pile of B.S. - and you are a liar.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

> You then posted answers and similarly
> inflated bafflegab/word-magic' to make it appear that you
> actually could solve for the final velocity and elapsed time.

Which, of course, I did. If you did have an understanding of physics
you would be able to follow my work. I made it clear, concise, and
complete.

>
> When I worked this through on paper, your 'answers' appeared
> to be in error, in several ways.

The chances that you have the knowledge to actually work on this
problem are close to nil. Your guess to the final answer was off by
almost 5,000 ft/sec.

> After much flailing about
> and defaming remarks, you admitted that you simply copied
> an equation for 'instantaneous velocity'

No, that is a lie. I posted my work.

>and can't seem to
> get it through your narrow-minded, ambitiously ignorant,
> 'tea-potty' head

When you act like you have the mentality of a seven-year-old, I don't
know whether to be amused or disgusted.

> that you didn't work the problem like you
> were bragging about, nor did you even get the correct answers..
>
> I'll let you stew and fume about that some more today. It's
> still fun watching you squirm because of your own mistakes..
>

I posted the problem as a way to test the validity of your claim to
have a college degree in physics. My contention have been confirmed to
my satisfaction.

> Several examples of your 'low-effort thinking' follow..

And here comes the typo list again, including quotes from several other
people besides myself.

[Man of Mind]

On 5/9/2013 9:35 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> Man of Mind continued exploiting the clumsy lies posted by:
>>
>> On 5/8/2013 9:59 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind continued exploiting the clumsy lies posted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2013 11:22 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind was taunting the deliberate ignorance of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/8/2013 8:26 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2013 1:17 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

.........

>>>>>>>>> Thanks for again showing me the 'short-cut' you used, instead
>>>>>>>>> of actually solving your 'psychics problem' the way you were
>>>>>>>>> pretending to have, and then couldn't show your work..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here ya go
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still trying to pretend you didn't lie or deflect away from
>>>>>>> you previous mistakes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thought so..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So which step in my solution is incorrect?
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time to tutor you further, if you don't want to admit
>>>> how you "blotched" your own 'psychics problem' that you've bragged
>>>> for years that you had already 'solved', but now admit that you
>>>> looked up a 'short-cut' and 'copied it from wiki' like you accused
>>>> me of..
>>>>
>>>> Congrats, your lies went nowhere, again..
>>>
>>> Maybe you could simplify it further
>>
>> Okay, you lied about having 'solved' the physics problem you

>> challenged me with, owing your previous insinuations about

>> my degree in physics. You then posted answers and similarly

>> inflated bafflegab/word-magic' to make it appear that you
>> actually could solve for the final velocity and elapsed time.

By the way, I see that you've consistently avoided my posts
that outline where the potential energy equations are derived
from, instead preferring to brush all that aside with still
more of your pathetic mewlings.. *>LOL!<* Wait until I
start schooling you again, this time with the equivalence
of the kinetic energy to the potential energy, and not the
'instantaneous velocity' your short-cut brought to you..

>> When I worked this through on paper, your 'answers' appeared

>> to be in error, in several ways. After much flailing about

>> and defaming remarks, you admitted that you simply copied

>> an equation for 'instantaneous velocity' and can't seem to

>> get it through your narrow-minded, ambitiously ignorant,

>> 'tea-potty' head that you didn't work the problem like you

>> were bragging about, nor did you even get the correct answers..
>>
>> I'll let you stew and fume about that some more today. It's
>> still fun watching you squirm because of your own mistakes..

Examples follow..

> There are no insinuations about it - I'm saying your claim
> of a physics degree is a steaming pile of B.S.

Too bad for you, but that's what my BcSci is in, slapped fraud.
Maybe you should focus more on learning instead of proudly
posing your ambitious ignorance as some kind of false absolute?

> If you did have an understanding of physics you would be able

..to show that you started out using the wrong constants, measures
and then when you couldn't even recognize the equations that you
screwed up for what they were, you started lying, and rather
poorly. I didn't use your 'short-cut', and used precisely the
the manner you outlined that you claimed to have used yourself..

Funny thing, how my answer proved you were lying, from the outset..

> The chances that you have the knowledge to actually work on this
> problem

Your 'short-cuts', owing to your habitual 'low-effort thinking',
told me that not only could you *NOT* solve your 'psychics
problem' the way you pretended to have done, when I presented
the precise details that proved you were wrong, you began
your usual insinuations, defamation and lies..

Just like you did when I pointed out the flaws in your
now-debunked 'talking points' about man-made climate change..

> No, that is a lie. I posted my work.

*>LOL!<* And you're still pretending that you didn't post
as Faulty Sham, eh? I'm sure that you know how to remotely
access your home computer while you're at 'work' as an IT
monkey-boi..

> When you act like you have the mentality of a seven-year-old,

That would be yourself, actually..

> I posted the problem as a way to test the validity of your
> claim to have a college degree in physics

And you failed, tsk-tsk-tsk.. Even your 'short-cut' turned
out to be the wrong answer. Wow, and after all those years
of boasting solving your 'psychics problem', you failed..

That's gotta be painfully embarrassing for you, judging by
all the histrionics and name-calling you've been posting..

> And here comes the typo list again, including quotes from several other

..'nyms that you've been posting with, yes, it's that obvious
with your poor spelling and grammar. It's almost like you
want to be caught lying, so you can artlessly lie some more..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/9/2013 9:56 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames123@gmail,com> squirmed:
>
> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> On May 9, 12:21 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> On May 8, 1:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 12:56 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 12:22 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind replied:

........
>>>>>>>> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17
>>>>>>> ft/sec^2, which is what I used.

Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]

And you've been running away from that fact ever since..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/9/2013 10:28 PM, Man of Mind commented upon the cowardice of:

>
> On 5/9/2013 9:56 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames123@gmail,com> squirmed:
>>
>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> On May 9, 12:21 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 1:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 12:56 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 12:22 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind replied:

.........

>>>>>>>>> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17
>>>>>>>> ft/sec^2, which is what I used.
>
> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>
> And you've been running away from that fact ever since..

*>cricket.wav<*

--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling

[Man of Mind]

On 5/10/2013 9:05 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 10, 9:49 am, Man of Mind commented upon the cowardice of:

>>
>> On 5/9/2013 10:28 PM, Man of Mind commented upon the cowardice of:
>>>
>>> On 5/9/2013 9:56 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames123@gmail,com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 9, 12:21 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 1:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:56 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:22 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind replied:

...........

>>>>>>>>>>> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17
>>>>>>>>>> ft/sec^2, which is what I used.
>>>
>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>
>>> And you've been running away from that fact ever since..
>

> [..], if your equation is correct

There's no "if" to that, Faulty Sham..

> You can out it right here:

*>LOL!<* Typical "low-effort thinking" on your part again..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/10/2013 9:34 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:

..
>> You can out it right here:

..
>> Did see your answer Kurt - what's the problem?

[Man of Mind]

On 5/11/2013 4:13 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.nut> whined:
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:56:31 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 5/10/2013 9:34 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:

....

>>>> You can out it right here:

....

>>>> Did see your answer Kurt - what's the problem?
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Typical "low-effort thinking" on your part again..
>

> I remember

Turns out, you got upset about that..

Like I said, typical "low-effort thinking" on your part again..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/10/2013 9:57 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames123@gmail,com> squirmed:
>
> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> On May 10, 10:28 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
.............

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17
> ft/sec^2, which is what I used.

Yup, and you substituted it back into U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
as "G", you simple-minded right-wing low-effort thinker..

And you've been running away from that fact ever since..

> Well, you've put the Kurt "physics degree"

Thanks for helping to prove I have one, and you don't, cupcakes..

--
"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

[Man of Mind]

On 5/12/2013 12:34 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> Man of Mind was noting the evasions and denials exhibited by:
>>
>> On 5/9/2013 9:56 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined and squirmed along with:

>>>>
>>>> On May 9, 12:21 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 1:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 12:56 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:22 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind replied:

..........

>>>>>>>>>> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17
>>>>>>>>> ft/sec^2, which is what I used.
>>
>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>
>> And you've been running away from that fact ever since..
>

> You've posted that line over half a dozen times already

You really have difficulties with numbers, such that I can't
imagine how you manage to get past balancing your checking
account..

> - it wasn't correct the first time you did it

Yes, it was, and you still don't understand why, precisely?

> I posted the procedure I used

And I've posted precisely why you're wrong..

> I used Newton's second law of motion

No, you didn't.. You took a short-cut that gave you the
wrong answer after you figured out your couldn't determine
the potential energy in your initial boastings..

> you confused that with his universal law of gravitation

Nope, you confused your 'variable' (g) for a 'constant' (G),
and you've been writhing in denials for months now, cupcakes..

> It does nothing to help your reputation by posting the same claim

You should take your own advise, slapped fraud..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/14/2013 8:15 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 12, 1:34 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> Man of Mind replied:

>>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 12:34 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was noting the evasions and denials exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/9/2013 9:56 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined and squirmed along with:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On May 9, 12:21 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 1:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:56 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:22 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind replied:

.............

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17
>>>>>>>>>>>> ft/sec^2, which is what I used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>>>
>>>>> And you've been running away from that fact ever since..
>>>>

>>>> You've posted that line over half a dozen times already
>>>
>>> You really have difficulties with numbers, such that I can't
>>> imagine how you manage to get past balancing your checking
>>> account..
>>>
>>>> - it wasn't correct the first time you did it
>>>
>>> Yes, it was, and you still don't understand why, precisely?
>>>
>>>> I posted the procedure I used
>>>
>>> And I've posted precisely why you're wrong..
>>>
>>>> I used Newton's second law of motion
>>>
>>> No, you didn't.. You took a short-cut that gave you the
>>> wrong answer after you figured out your couldn't determine
>>> the potential energy in your initial boastings..
>>>
>>>> you confused that with his universal law of gravitation
>>>
>>> Nope, you confused your 'variable' (g) for a 'constant' (G),
>>> and you've been writhing in denials for months now, cupcakes..

Still trying to pretend you didn't screw your 'psychics problem'
up from the very beginning, eh?

Thought so..

[Salty Stan]

On May 14, 10:50 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 8:15 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 1:34 pm, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> >> Man of Mind replied:
>
> >>> On 5/12/2013 12:34 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>
> >>>> Man of Mind was noting the evasions and denials exhibited by:
>

> >>>>> On 5/9/2013 9:56 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> >>>>>> faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined and squirmed along with:
>
> >>>>>>> On May 9, 12:21 pm, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> >>>>>>>> On May 8, 1:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:56 pm, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:22 pm, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> squirmed:

Run away, Kurt, run away.

[Man of Mind]

On 5/14/2013 9:53 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 14, 10:50 am, Man of Mind pointed out the 'low-effort thinking' of:
>>
>> On 5/14/2013 8:15 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> On May 12, 1:34 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind replied to the various lies and evasions posted by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2013 12:34 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
......

>>>>>> I used Newton's second law of motion
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you didn't.. You took a short-cut that gave you the
>>>>> wrong answer after you figured out your couldn't determine
>>>>> the potential energy in your initial boastings..
>>>>>
>>>>>> you confused that with his universal law of gravitation
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you confused your 'variable' (g) for a 'constant' (G),
>>>>> and you've been writhing in denials for months now, cupcakes..
>>
>> Still trying to pretend you didn't screw your 'psychics problem'
>> up from the very beginning, eh?

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

>> Thought so..
>
> Run away,

Yup, that's what you're doing, again..

Here's where you made the wrong substitution:

> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17
> ft/sec^2, which is what I used.

Instead of "G", right..

You're still running away from the correct 'potential energy'
equation that you pretended would get you the same 'short-cut'
answer you got from the 'instantaneous velocity' equation..

Instead of: U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]

..and you substituted the variable "g" for the constant "G"..

Wow, that's gotta be embarrassing for you, except you've already
demonstrated that you're a sociopathic liar, common among you
right-wing 'tea-potty' Rethuglican proto-fascists..

Thanks for again demonstrating my point, cupcakes..

[Man of Mind]

On 5/13/2013 9:19 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> On 5/12/2013 12:34 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>
>> Man of Mind was noting the evasions and denials exhibited by:
>>>
>>> On 5/9/2013 9:56 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>
>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined and squirmed along with:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 9, 12:21 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 1:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:56 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:22 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind replied:

...........

>>>>>>>>>>> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17
>>>>>>>>>> ft/sec^2, which is what I used.
>>>
>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>
>>> And you've been running away from that fact ever since..
>>
>> You've posted that line over half a dozen times already
>
> You really have difficulties with numbers, such that I can't
> imagine how you manage to get past balancing your checking
> account..

"So, did you ever get an answer to that?"

*>chuckling<*

[Man of Mind]

On 5/30/2013 1:31 PM, Faulty Sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>
> On May 15, 9:32 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:

>>
>> On 5/12/2013 12:34 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was noting the evasions and denials exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2013 9:56 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>
>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined and squirmed along with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 9, 12:21 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 8, 1:32 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:56 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:22 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 9:26 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> squirmed:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:05 am, Man of Mind replied:

............

>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's where you made the wrong substitution:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> G * M(e) / r^2 = g = 9.8 m/sec^s or 32.17
>>>>>>>>>>> ft/sec^2, which is what I used.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, instead of U = -G*M(e)*m/[(r+y)^2]
>>>>
>>>> And you've been running away from that fact ever since..
>>>
>>> You've posted that line over half a dozen times already
>>
>> You really have difficulties with numbers, such that I can't
>> imagine how you manage to get past balancing your checking
>> account..
>

> You finally silenced us!

Yup, time and time again..