Re: 7 Million will not receive employer provided health care insurance

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 8:52:29 AM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>
>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 7, 3:51 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
......
>>>>>> To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme
>>>>>> whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure which is most common; making up bullshit and stating it
>>>>>> is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong
>>>>>> rather than you providing substantiation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Bull shit
>>>>>> 2. lack of substantiation
>>>>>> 3. Diversion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3
>>>>>> coming in an extremely close third
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Punting is way down the list. There are a whole lot of avoidance
>>>>>> tactics between #3 and punting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that
>>>>> matter, or even most liberals.
>>>>
>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are paedophiles, do they?
>>

>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are
>>>> paedophiles, do they? They are not like you. By the way, I see
>>>> that your little sock puppet seems to have disappeared....for the moment.....
>>>
>>> Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that

Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..

>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>
>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> Worthington probably doesn't realize that

You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?

--
"One of the great attractions of patriotism -
it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person
of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully
and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a
feeling that we are profoundly virtuous."
~Aldous Huxley

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 9:31:33 AM2/10/13

to

Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..
>
>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>
>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>
>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>
>You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?

Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner into admitting that he was an
alcoholic andf a deadbeat dad, and then I chased old foreclosed
Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off Usenet altogether...

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 9:43:48 AM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 7, 3:51 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

........

>>>>>>>> To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme
>>>>>>>> whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which is most common; making up bullshit and stating it
>>>>>>>> is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong
>>>>>>>> rather than you providing substantiation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Bull shit
>>>>>>>> 2. lack of substantiation
>>>>>>>> 3. Diversion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3
>>>>>>>> coming in an extremely close third
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Punting is way down the list. There are a whole lot of avoidance
>>>>>>>> tactics between #3 and punting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that
>>>>>>> matter, or even most liberals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are

>>>>>> paedophiles, do they? They are not like you. By the way, I see
>>>>>> that your little sock puppet seems to have disappeared....for the moment.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that
>>
>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact

>> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..
>

> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..

Sure, you're pretending to not be Steven Cayonne?

>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>
>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>
>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>
>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>
> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner

You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..

> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
> Usenet altogether...

Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..

So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 9:57:34 AM2/10/13

to

Never heard of anyone with that name, Dummy,,

>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>
>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>
>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>>
>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>
>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>
>You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>> Usenet altogether...
>
>Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..

<LOL> In order to do professional writing, porky would have to make
money at it. NO, Porky bailed on Usenet because he could no longer
pretend that he hadn't been foreclosed on and that he still had a
wife.

>So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

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

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

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

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

Canyon: OK

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

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

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 10:32:12 AM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind was still laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:

........

>>>>>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are
>>>>>>>> paedophiles, do they? They are not like you. By the way, I see
>>>>>>>> that your little sock puppet seems to have disappeared....for the moment.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>>>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
>>>> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>>>> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>>>> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..
>>>
>>> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..
>>
>> Sure, you're pretending to not be Steven Cayonne?
>
> Never heard of anyone with that name, Dummy,,

*>LOL!<*

>>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>>
>>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>>>
>>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>>
>>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>>
>> You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>> has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..
>
> Transcript

Hey, "steve", you links are broken..

>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>> Usenet altogether...
>>
>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>
> <LOL> In order to do professional writing

You don't know enough about that profession to even begin
to criticize someone you clearly have been 'stalking'..

As I pointed out, previously..

>> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>
> Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

Ahh, so now you're returning to your 'google scholarship'..

*>LOL!<*

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

Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..

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

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

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

Also, from another of your smugly self-impotent 'cites'..

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3

"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."

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

"Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.

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

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

So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:

> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

"The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
was not found on this server."

> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
> in a lecture summary.

"Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..

F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:

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

"Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."

> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

"The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."

Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..

--
In the Age of Information, Ignorance is a choice..

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 10:48:54 AM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 6:52 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..

Are you libeling him now?

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 11:02:09 AM2/10/13

to

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!msg/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/eq-7b9ZXLKQ/gd4pvaTFcXEJ

>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>
>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>
>> <LOL> In order to do professional writing
>
>You don't know enough about that profession to even begin
>to criticize someone you clearly have been 'stalking'..

I know enough to know that Porky Jamieson isn't going to sell any more
books than your other writer wannabe pal, Milt Shook.

I have to laugh at all the usenet leftists who are so unhappy with
themselves that they have to pretend to be something they know they
can never be.

>As I pointed out, previously..
>
>>> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>>> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>>> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>>
>> Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law
>
>Ahh, so now you're returning to your 'google scholarship'..
>
>*>LOL!<*
>
>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>> an electric field"
>>
>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>
>Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..

<CHUCKLE> Why don't you go and argue with the UC at Davis about that?

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an

electric field, so the two fields are not independent."
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

>http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>
>5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>
> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>
>Also, from another of your smugly self-impotent 'cites'..
>
>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>
> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
> other three fundamental forces that they can be
> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
> corrections."
>
>http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field
>
> "Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
> in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
> particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
> drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.
>
> A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,

> and that’s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

> other."
>
> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
> field."
>
>So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:

Poor dumb Lochner is too stupid to recognize that his <LOL>
"rebuttals" don't even address the issue...

>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>
>"The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
> was not found on this server."
>
>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>> in a lecture summary.
>
>"Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>
>F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>
> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>
>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>
>"The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>
>Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..

We should feel sorry for Lochner, of course. His Usenet pretense is
very difficult. He's pretending to have a degree in physics when all
he has is an old physics book he probably stole while sweeping out the
school library.

It isn't working very well.

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

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

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

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

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

Canyon: OK

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

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.

http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 11:59:19 AM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind was still laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:
>> ........

>>>>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>>>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>>>>
>>>> You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>>>> has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..
>>>
>>> Transcript
>>
>> Hey, "steve", you links are broken..
>
> https://groups.google.com

Ahh, once a google squalor, always a google squalor, eh?

>>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>>
>>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>>
>>> <LOL> In order to do professional writing
>>
>> You don't know enough about that profession to even begin
>> to criticize someone you clearly have been 'stalking'..
>
> I know enough to know

No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,

>>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>>> an electric field"
>>>
>>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>>
>> Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..
>
> <CHUCKLE> Why don't you go

I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..

Now, as I pointed out earlier:

>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>>
>> 5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>>
>> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
>> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
>> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
>> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>>
>> Also, from another of your smugly self-impotent 'cites'..
>>
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>>
>> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
>> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
>> other three fundamental forces that they can be
>> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
>> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
>> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
>> corrections."
>>
>> http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field
>>
>> "Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
>> in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
>> particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
>> drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.
>>
>> A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,

>> and thatï¿½s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

>> other."
>>
>> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
>> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
>> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
>> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
>> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
>> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
>> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
>> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
>> field."
>>
>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>
> Poor dumb Lochner

Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?

>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>
>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>> was not found on this server."
>>
>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>> in a lecture summary.
>>
>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>
>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>
>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>
>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>
>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>
>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>
> We should feel sorry for Lochner

Who?

> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
> have a degree in physics

Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..

Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 12:47:41 PM2/10/13

to

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:06:42 -0700, Spokane Social Club
<s...@kane.invalid> wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 7:43 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>>
>>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>>
>> You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>> has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..
>

>You've made the leap of reality by referring to yourself now in the
>third person?
>
>That's true mental illness in action.

Kurt is pretty ashamed of himself. He prefers to think of himself as
somebody else.

>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>> Usenet altogether...
>>
>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>

>You might share that "announcement" with us then, a message id link will
>suffice...

>
>> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>>

>And you're all about the impotence and rage, aren't you "mind"?
>
>Controls freaks of your lot always are.
>

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 12:47:41 PM2/10/13

to

They're losers... like you, Lochner, and nobody is jealous of losers.

>>>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>>>> an electric field"
>>>>
>>>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>>>
>>> Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..
>>

>> <CHUCKLE> Why don't you go arguw with UC at Davis..

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an
electric field"

http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

>I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..

<LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong...

>Now, as I pointed out earlier:
>
>>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>>>
>>> 5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>>>
>>> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
>>> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
>>> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
>>> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>>>
>>> Also, from another of your smugly self-impotent 'cites'..
>>>
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>>>
>>> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
>>> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
>>> other three fundamental forces that they can be
>>> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
>>> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
>>> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
>>> corrections."
>>>
>>> http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field
>>>
>>> "Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
>>> in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
>>> particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
>>> drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.
>>>
>>> A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,

>>> and that’s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

>>> other."
>>>
>>> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
>>> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
>>> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
>>> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
>>> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
>>> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
>>> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
>>> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
>>> field."
>>>
>>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>>
>> Poor dumb Lochner
>
>Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?

Poor dumb Lochner posts irrelevant material hoping folks won't
recognize his earlier stupidity.

>>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>>
>>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>> was not found on this server."
>>>
>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>
>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>
>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>
>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>
>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>
>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>
>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>
>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>
>Who?

You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity out of shame?

>> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
>> have a degree in physics
>
>Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>create electrical fields'

<LOL> It's these university sites that say it, Dummy

when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>
>Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..

I'm still chuckling over the following:

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 12:56:16 PM2/10/13

to

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind

<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?

Lochner failed English grammar too, it seems...

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 1:18:15 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind was still laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

.......

>>>>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>>>>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>>>>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>>>>
>>>>> <LOL> In order to do professional writing
>>>>
>>>> You don't know enough about that profession to even begin
>>>> to criticize someone you clearly have been 'stalking'..
>>>
>>> I know enough to know
>>
>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>
> They're losers... like you

But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..

>>>>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>>>>> an electric field"
>>>>>
>>>>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..
>>>
>>> <CHUCKLE> Why don't you go arguw with UC at Davis..
>

"arguw with UC"?

> "According to Faraday's law

You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*

>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>
> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong

Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..

>>>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>>>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>>>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>>>
>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>
>> Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?
>
> Poor dumb Lochner posts irrelevant material

Wrong on both counts, crayon..

>>>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>>>
>>>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>>> was not found on this server."
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>
>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>
>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>
>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>
>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>
>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>
>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>
>> Who?
>
> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity

I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
in that field of study.

You know, if you can't accept that you have but the understanding
of a subject comparable to that of a secondary school student,
maybe you should go learn more before demonstrating your
ignorance on an international newsgroup..

Start here, and if you have any further difficulties..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Quantative

>>> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
>>> have a degree in physics
>>
>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>> create electrical fields'
>
> <LOL> It's these university sites that say it

Oh, so you found a couple of mistakes using Google to get
the phrase you wanted to find, and ignored the overwhelming
number of educational web-sites that teach the exact opposite
of what you're flailing around trying to defend with your
'bluster and spit'? *>giggling<*

I think you really should start here:

http://phet.colorado.edu/files/activities/3087/Magnets_Magnetic_and%20Electrostatic_Fields%20unit.pdf

>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields

>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite

>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>
>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>
> I'm still chuckling over the following:

Crayon, let me break it to you gently..

You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 4:43:53 PM2/10/13

to

Right after failing life..

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 4:46:17 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 11:18 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity
>
> I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
> has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
> a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
> electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
> in that field of study.

Is it really "imagined"?

Or is there plenty of proof in the google archive and as well on certain
websites?

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 5:04:53 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 7:31 AM, Steve wrote:

>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
>
> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..
>
> Names that Lick-knob Lockner has claimed to be me in the course of one
> week

Wow, that's a sizable list.

>
> "John Patrick"
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a1cf0a750ed0a27b
>
> "Nichole"
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/7afc288cd5ce842a
>
> "peter"
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f0e68f5eeccd3d2d
>
> "Sam"
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b6e643d40be55c10
>
> "It's Sollog's GF and/or little brother"
> and supporters"
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/66c5a3dea83b4cda

I wouldn't feel to picked-on, he's pulling the same act on me now.

I think it's evidence of some kind of malignant persecution complex..

>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>
> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner into admitting that he was an
> alcoholic andf a deadbeat dad, and then I chased old foreclosed
> Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off Usenet altogether...
>

Lol, some trick indeed!

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 5:48:42 PM2/10/13

to

<ROTFL> The best Lochner can do is attack typos..

>> "According to Faraday's law
>
>You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

Poor dumb Lochner is still claiming that the University of California
at Davis has it all wrong..

>You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
>and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*

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

>>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>>
>> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong
>
>Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..

I quoted The University of California at Davis.. <LOL> and Lochner
that they are wrong..

>>>>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>>>>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>>>>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>>>>
>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>
>>> Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?
>>
>> Poor dumb Lochner posts irrelevant material
>
>Wrong on both counts, crayon..

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

<LOL> Now Lochner claims that the University of California at Davis
site is Faulty?

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

>You know, if you can't accept that you have but the understanding
>of a subject comparable to that of a secondary school student,
>maybe you should go learn more before demonstrating your
>ignorance on an international newsgroup..
>
>Start here, and if you have any further difficulties..
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Quantative

wikipedia???????? <LOL> Really?

>>>> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
>>>> have a degree in physics
>>>
>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>> create electrical fields'
>>
>> <LOL> It's these university sites that say it
>
>Oh, so you found a couple of mistakes using Google to get

Lochner claims that the University of California at Davis site is
mistaken.. and remember that Lochner's degree is only a figment of
his imagination.

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

>the phrase you wanted to find, and ignored the overwhelming
>number of educational web-sites that teach the exact opposite

...and yet Lochner cannot find anything that supports his claim...

>of what you're flailing around trying to defend with your
>'bluster and spit'? *>giggling<*
>
>I think you really should start here:
>
>http://phet.colorado.edu/files/activities/3087/Magnets_Magnetic_and%20Electrostatic_Fields%20unit.pdf
>
>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>
>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>
>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>
>Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>
>You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..

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

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

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

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

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

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

Canyon: OK

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

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.

http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Slackjaw

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 5:55:21 PM2/10/13

to

Steve wrote:

> >> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
> >> Usenet altogether...
> >
> > Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
> > more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
> > before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>
> <LOL> In order to do professional writing, porky would have to make
> money at it. NO, Porky bailed on Usenet because he could no longer
> pretend that he hadn't been foreclosed on and that he still had a
> wife.

Zepp - professional writing?

Thanks, that's my laugh for today.

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

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 5:58:07 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 3:19 PM, Sockpuppet Social Flub whimpered when:
>
> On 2/10/2013 9:59 AM, Man of Mind continued laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

.....

>>>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>>>
>>>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>>> was not found on this server."
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>
>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>
>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>
>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>
>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>
>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>
>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>
>> Who?
>

> Now honestly, who can't google a bit

Well, apparently neither of you can actually find out
as much as you think you can when you "google a bit"..

But, that's okay, both of you overestimate yourselves,
and wind up humiliating yourselves rather disastrously..

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

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 6:28:00 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 3:58 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>>
>>> Who?
>>
>> Now honestly, who can't google a bit
>
> Well, apparently neither of you can actually find out
> as much as you think you can when you "google a bit"..

Apparently you left a lot more out there than you're now comfortable with..

> But, that's okay, both of you overestimate yourselves,
> and wind up humiliating yourselves rather disastrously..

You've had your ass handed to you on the 23 million _and_
magnetic/capacitive matters as well.

How many more crash and burns will you become known for?

Matt

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 6:35:15 PM2/10/13

to

Man of Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:kf8o9b$j7t$1...@dont-email.me:

Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?

Three simple words: "right hand rule".

Matt

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 6:53:09 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
.......

>>>>>>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create
>>>>>>> an electric field"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that's incorrect, per your previous 'cites'..
>>>>>
>>>>> <CHUCKLE> Why don't you go arguw with UC at Davis..
>>
>> "arguw with UC"?
>
> <ROTFL> The best

Is that the best you can type, "steve"? You don't even
check to see if you're spelling your posting correctly?

Wow, I'd read about cases like yours and how your poor
self-esteem causing you bluster abject nonsense, contrary
to established facts..

F'rinstance..

>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>
>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>

> Poor dumb Lochner

You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?

Here, give it another try..

"You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction
>>

>> You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
>> and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*
>
> "According to Faraday's law

I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, just like you.. *>LOL!<*

>>>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>>>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>>>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>>>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>>>
>>> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong
>>
>> Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..
>
> I quoted The University of California at Davis

That's called an "appeal to authority" fallacy argument, "steve"..

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

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

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

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

> and Lochner that they are wrong..

Stumbling all over yourself today, are you?

>>>>>> So, let's see.. You're desperately repeating what you found
>>>>>> using a search engine, with your deliberate ignorance founded
>>>>>> upon your secondary educational background, and blathered:
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>>
>>>> Still with your puerile personal attacks, Crayon?
>>>
>>> Poor dumb Lochner posts irrelevant material
>>
>> Wrong on both counts, crayon..
>
> "According to Faraday's law

*>LOL!<* You're still wrong, no matter how many times
you repeat your "little bit of googling", you illiterate
anti-science right-wing zealot..

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3

"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."

And for your next mistake..

Is wrong, just like you. Even your political opinions
are just a reversed, likely the result of brain damage
and artificial pride in your ambitious 'bluster and spit'..

>> You know, if you can't accept that you have but the understanding
>> of a subject comparable to that of a secondary school student,
>> maybe you should go learn more before demonstrating your
>> ignorance on an international newsgroup..
>>
>> Start here, and if you have any further difficulties..
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Quantative
>
> wikipedia???????? <LOL> Really?

Okay, let's try something simpler for you..

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

"Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.

A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,

and thatï¿½s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

other."

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

>>>>> His Usenet pretense is very difficult. He's pretending to
>>>>> have a degree in physics
>>>>
>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>> create electrical fields'
>>>
>>> <LOL> It's these university sites that say it
>>
>> Oh, so you found a couple of mistakes using Google to get

>> the phrase you wanted to find, and ignored the overwhelming
>> number of educational web-sites that teach the exact opposite

>> of what you're flailing around trying to defend with your
>> 'bluster and spit'? *>giggling<*
>

> Lochner claims that the Unive[..]

Still trying to turn everything into a personal attack?

Wow, you really are a google-cripple..

Now, how many web-sites did you find using google that tell
you how 'magnetic fields create electric fields', "steve"?

Now, did it ever occur to you that you could be so
astoundingly wrong with your search on Google that
you came up with the wrong answers, just like your
amazingly stupid claim that capacitors are magnetic?

Nah, probably not even once.. *>chuckling<*

You probably can't even grasp an electric quadrupole
analysis of a set of EHV-DC transmission lines, where
the cables are strung so as to cancel out the magnetic
fields.

>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>
>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>
>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>
>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>
> <CHUCKLE>

Still trying to make it sound like you're not stupid, eh?

> "According to Faraday's law,

Oh, I see where you're getting this from now.. *>LOL!<*

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

Reciprocal behavior of electric and magnetic fields

"Faraday's Law may be stated roughly as 'a changing
magnetic field creates an electric field'."

"stated roughly" being the key to all of your seemingly
deliberate misunderstanding about this. Here, let me go
over the salient details one more time so you'll finally
get it..

The charged particles, that we call 'electrons', are
what create 'electric fields', and when they move through
space (even a complete vacuum), these moving charges
create an electromagnetic field. Now, in the absence
of charges, a magnetic field, moving or stationary,
cannot create these charged particles out of nothing,
as that would violate the conservation of energy..

Get it yet?

Magnetic fields can attract charges, even cause them to
move in conductors, where electrons are relatively free
to move about, but by itself, a magnetic field cannot
create electric charge. It's that simple, and the
generalization that you've been arrogantly tossing around
only applies to certain situations.

Read here:

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

Electromagnetic field as a feedback loop

The behavior of the electromagnetic field can be resolved
into four different parts of a loop:

the electric and magnetic fields are generated by electric charges,
the electric and magnetic fields interact with each other,
the electric and magnetic fields produce forces on electric charges,
the electric charges move in space.

Hopefully, that will fill in some pot-holes from your googling..

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 6:59:21 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 3:46 PM, Sockpuppet Social Flubs whined again:
>
> On 2/10/2013 11:18 AM, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
.......

>>>>>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>>>>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>>>>> was not found on this server."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>>>
>>>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>>>
>>>> Who?
>>>

>>> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity
>>
>> I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
>> has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
>> a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
>> electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
>> in that field of study.
>
> Is it really "imagined"?

Are you really a 'social club', or just another
right-wing sock-puppet with a full ego diaper?

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 7:04:04 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>

>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
....

>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>
>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>
>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>
>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>
> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?

Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
prod him into telling on himself again..

It's that Dunningï¿½Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 7:29:51 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 5:28 PM, Sockpuppet Social Flub whimpered when:
>
> On 2/10/2013 3:58 PM, Man of Mind was exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 3:19 PM, Sockpuppet Social Flub whimpered when:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 9:59 AM, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> boasted impotently:
.......

>>>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>>>

>>>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>>>
>>>> Who?
>>>
>>> Now honestly, who can't google a bit
>>
>> Well, apparently neither of you can actually find out
>> as much as you think you can when you "google a bit"..
>>

>> But, that's okay, both of you overestimate yourselves,
>> and wind up humiliating yourselves rather disastrously..
>
> You've had your ass handed to you on the 23 million _and_
> magnetic/capacitive matters as well.

Nope, you're just trying to pretend that your lies have
any bearing upon the facts, owing to your over-reliance
upon that "google a bit" thing.. *>chuckling<*

But, you and "steve" share something in common..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367

Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing
one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

Abstract

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their
abilities in many social and intellectual domains.
The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs,
in part, because people who are unskilled in these
domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people
reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices,
but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive
ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors
found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated
their test performance and ability. Although their test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated
themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked
this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill,
or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.
Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants,
and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 8:01:24 PM2/10/13

to

"As the wattage increases, the loss decreases.
I didn't quite believe this either, but was pointed
at some good evidence of this.
In fact, it makes sense to a certain degree, the
lossage becomes insignificant quickly."
--mattt...@sprynet.com Apr 29, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/d8ff3e51e76c1f45

Canyon note: See what "makes sense" to a moron? Matt is
not only not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he's apparently
had some nasty encounters with the disposal..

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 8:01:24 PM2/10/13

to

<CHUCKLE> You do that, Dummy.. and be sure to tell them that they're
all wrong.

>Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
>it's completely wrong, just like you.. *>LOL!<*

>>>>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>>>>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>>>>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>>>>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>>>>
>>>> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong
>>>
>>> Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..
>>
>> I quoted The University of California at Davis
>
>That's called an "appeal to authority" fallacy argument, "steve"..

<LOL> No, it's called a quote...

>Meanwhile, back in the real world:
>
>http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>
>5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>
> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>
>> and Lochner that they are wrong..
>
>Stumbling

So put down the bottle and stop your stumbling, Drunky...

Steve

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 8:01:24 PM2/10/13

to

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:04:04 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>In the Age of Information, Ignorance is a choice..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 8:11:53 PM2/10/13

to

Man of Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:kf9cgj$61q$1...@dont-email.me:

> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..
>

I prefer to think of it as being a "Google Scholar", something that I
really do think is harming the country. Admittedly, looking something up
is just as useful as memorizing it, but if you don't know what the right
answer ought to be ... well.

Matt

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 8:25:21 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:53:09 -0600, Man of Mind was still exploiting:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

.....

>>>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>>>
>>>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>>
>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>
>> You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
>> that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?
>>
>> Here, give it another try..
>>
>> "You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"

Brave Sir Crayon bravely ran away.. *>LOL!<*

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction
>>>>
>>>> You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
>>>> and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*
>>>
>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>
>> I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?

>> Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
>> it's completely wrong, just like you.. *>LOL!<*
>

> <CHUCKLE> You do that

Not a problem, should I have them include you on the
return e-mail? Or are you trying to avoid seeing just
how incompetent you really are, Mr Magnetic Capacitors?

>>>>>> I can, and will, because unlike you, I've taken those classes,
>>>>>> and there's nothing, precisely *NOTHING*, that you can say that
>>>>>> will change the fact. You're just simply wrong, and too afraid to
>>>>>> admit just how wrong you really are. Typical in a 'conservative'..
>>>>>
>>>>> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..
>>>
>>> I quoted The University of California at Davis
>>
>> That's called an "appeal to authority" fallacy argument, "steve"..
>
> <LOL> No, it's called a quote...

No, you're quoting something that contained the phrase
your were trying to "google a bit" and lost the overall
context of Faraday's Law of Induction. Then you tried
to run away, just like you always do..

>> Meanwhile, back in the real world:
>>
>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>>
>> 5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>>
>> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
>> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
>> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
>> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>>
>>> and Lochner that they are wrong..
>>

>> Stumbling all over yourself today, are you?
>

> So put down the bottle

I did, almost nine years ago, little "steve"..

>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>

>> *>LOL!<* You're still wrong, no matter how many times
>> you repeat your "little bit of googling", you illiterate
>> anti-science right-wing zealot..
>>
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>>
>> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
>> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
>> other three fundamental forces that they can be
>> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
>> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
>> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
>> corrections."

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
>>>> has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
>>>> a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
>>>> electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
>>>> in that field of study.
>>>
>>> <LOL> Now Lochner claims that the University of California at Davis
>>
>> Is wrong, just like you. Even your political opinions
>> are just a reversed, likely the result of brain damage
>> and artificial pride in your ambitious 'bluster and spit'..

*>cricket.wav<*

>>> Lochner claims that the Unive[..]
>>
>> Still trying to turn everything into a personal attack?
>>
>> Wow, you really are a google-cripple..
>>
>> Now, how many web-sites did you find using google that tell
>> you how 'magnetic fields create electric fields', "steve"?
>>
>> Now, did it ever occur to you that you could be so
>> astoundingly wrong with your search on Google that
>> you came up with the wrong answers, just like your
>> amazingly stupid claim that capacitors are magnetic?
>>
>> Nah, probably not even once.. *>chuckling<*
>>
>> You probably can't even grasp an electric quadrupole
>> analysis of a set of EHV-DC transmission lines, where
>> the cables are strung so as to cancel out the magnetic
>> fields.

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>
>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>
>>> <CHUCKLE>
>>
>> Still trying to make it sound like you're not stupid, eh?
>>

>>> "According to Faraday's law,
>>

*>cricket.wav<*

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 8:29:54 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM,"steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined impotently:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:04:04 -0600, Man of Mind restored:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

......

>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>
>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>
>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>
>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>
>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>
>> It's that Dunningï¿½Kruger effect, coming into play with him..
>

> <LOL> So when is

Hey, "steve".. You're desperately appealing to a false
conclusion, based upon your grade-school comprehension again..

Good luck with that.. *><LOL!<*

--

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 8:48:47 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 7:11 PM, Matt wrote:
>
> Man of Mind replied:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>

>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
....

>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>
>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>
>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>
>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>

>> It's that Dunningï¿½Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

>
> I prefer to think of it as being a "Google Scholar",
> something that I really do think is harming the country.

I'd have to concur, as it directly represents a sort of mental
'short-hand' that's simply an excuse for being intellectually
"lazy"..

> Admittedly, looking something up is just as useful as memorizing
> it, but if you don't know what the right answer ought to be ... well.

Not often, and there was a recent study about that, which you've
probably already read about elsewhere (certainly not here!)..

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/is-google-ruining-your-memory/

Is Google Ruining Your Memory? by Jonah Lehrer

"By now, youï¿½ve probably heard about this smart study
showing that Google is making you stupid, led by Betsy
Sparrow at Columbia. The scientists demonstrated that
the availability of the internet is changing the nature
of what we remember, making us more likely to recall
where the facts are rather than the facts themselves.

The actual study:

Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of
Having Information at Our Fingertips

Betsy Sparrow, Jenny Liu, Daniel M. Wegner

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/science.1207745.full.pdf

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 8:51:54 PM2/10/13

to

"steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined desperately:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:

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

>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>

>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
.....

>>>>>> I know enough to know
>>>>>
>>>>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>>>>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>>>>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>>>>
>>>> They're losers... like you
>>>
>>> But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
>>> like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..

You meant "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 10, 2013, 9:16:42 PM2/10/13

to

On 2/10/2013 7:25 PM, Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> was sniveling along with:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:55:21 +0000 (UTC), Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> was sniveling smugly and self-importantly:

>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:

..........

>>>>>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>>>>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>>>>>

>>>>> You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>>>>> has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..
>>>>>

>>>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>>>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>>>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>>>>

>>>>> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>>>>> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>>>>> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>

> Kurt, posting a blog

I haven't seen anything about his 'blog in a while,
unless you're commenting on his tag-lines. Gosh, did
you get your widdle feelings hurt by the big bad Zepp?

You undoubtedly need years of therapy now after being
scarred for life by his quick quips and humor, right?

> I seriously doubt that. He uses this NG to get free advertising

I've never seen much past a tag-line or two, but I'm sure
that you'll think up some kind of juvenile rationalization..

But, you and "steve" can pretend anything you'd like,
as there's nothing to prevent either of you from
becoming completely delusional..

--And you certainly won't be missed by Zepp..

NoBody

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 5:24:42 AM2/11/13

to

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:29 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:21:24 PM UTC, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:14:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard replied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:48:35 PM UTC, Faulty Sham whimpered:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Feb 7, 3:51 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>........
>>>>>>>>> To save time, maybe you and I should come up with a numbering scheme
>>>>>>>>> whereby we number each of your avoidance tactics in an argument?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which is most common; making up bullshit and stating it
>>>>>>>>> is fact, diversion, or insisting that the other person prove you wrong
>>>>>>>>> rather than you providing substantiation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think should be the proper number assignment? I suggest:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Bull shit
>>>>>>>>> 2. lack of substantiation
>>>>>>>>> 3. Diversion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are too close to call with #3
>>>>>>>>> coming in an extremely close third
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Punting is way down the list. There are a whole lot of avoidance
>>>>>>>>> tactics between #3 and punting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm sounds like an apt description of Kurt Lochner; or Zepp for that
>>>>>>>> matter, or even most liberals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they don't try to smear people by insinuating that they are
>>>>>>> paedophiles, do they? They are not like you. By the way, I see
>>>>>>> that your little sock puppet seems to have disappeared....for the moment.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, yes, actually, both of them have tried to do that

>>>
>>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact

>>> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>>> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>>> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..

>>
>> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..
>

>Sure, you're pretending to not be Steven Cayonne?

>
>>>>>> ... but they have both been punished for that...
>>>>>
>>>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>
>>>> Worthington probably doesn't realize that
>>>
>>> You think that you've "punished" Zepp and I with your deliberately
>>> vapid and sophomoric delusions of intellectual superiority, "steve"?
>>
>> Well yes.. first I tricked Lochner
>
>You 'tricked' him? Your admission of a malicious intent
>has now been established. Thanks, I'll forward that to him..
>
>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>> Usenet altogether...
>
>Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>

BWWWAAAHAAAAA!!!!! Thanks for the morning laugh about Zippo.

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 5:30:17 AM2/11/13

to

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

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

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

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

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

Canyon: OK

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

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.

http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 5:30:17 AM2/11/13

to

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 5:30:17 AM2/11/13

to

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:29:54 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM,"steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined impotently:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:04:04 -0600, Man of Mind restored:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>......
>>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>>
>>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>>
>>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>>

>>> It's that Dunning–Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

>>
>> <LOL> So when is
>
>Hey, "steve"..

Yes, Drunky?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 5:30:17 AM2/11/13

to

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:25:21 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:53:09 -0600, Man of Mind was still exploiting:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>.....
>>>>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>>>
>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>
>>> You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
>>> that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?
>>>
>>> Here, give it another try..
>>>
>>> "You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"
>
>Brave

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

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

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

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

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

Canyon: OK

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

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.

http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 5:30:17 AM2/11/13

to

Perhaps if you would sober up..

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 6:45:41 AM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:51:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined desperately:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

........

>>>>>>>> I know enough to know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>>>>>>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>>>>>>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're losers... like you
>>>>>
>>>>> But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
>>>>> like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..
>>
>> You meant "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?

*>cricket.wav<*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 6:49:16 AM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:25:21 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:53:09 -0600, Man of Mind was still exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

.......

>>>>>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>>
>>>> You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
>>>> that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?
>>>>
>>>> Here, give it another try..
>>>>
>>>> "You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"
>>

>> Brave Sir Crayon bravely ran away.. *>LOL!<*

"Bravely ran away.."

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

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

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

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 6:55:09 AM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined loudly:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:29:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM,"steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined impotently:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:04:04 -0600, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

........

>>>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>>>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>>>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>>>

>>>> It's that Dunningï¿½Kruger effect, coming into play with him..
>>>
>>> <LOL> So when is
>>

>> Hey, "steve".. You're desperately appealing to a false
>> conclusion, based upon your grade-school comprehension again..
>>
>> Good luck with that.. *><LOL!<*
>

> Yes,

Here's a hint, from one of your own cites..

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3

"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 7:03:47 AM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:16:42 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 7:25 PM, Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>
>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> was sniveling along with:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:55:21 +0000 (UTC), Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> was sniveling smugly and self-importantly:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
........

>>>>>>>> and then I chased old foreclosed Jamieson (Morning Wordsong) off
>>>>>>>> Usenet altogether...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contrary to what you believe, Zepp departed Usenet to devote
>>>>>>> more time to his professional writing, and had announced such
>>>>>>> before you started strutting and crowing about it, "steve"..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you're again doing your 'bluster and spit' about some
>>>>>>> events that clearly are so far out of your personal grasp,
>>>>>>> that all you can do is pout about how impotent you really are..
>>>
>>> Kurt, posting a blog
>>

>> I haven't seen anything about his 'blog in a while,
>> unless you're commenting on his tag-lines. Gosh, did
>> you get your widdle feelings hurt by the big bad Zepp?
>>
>> You undoubtedly need years of therapy now after being
>> scarred for life by his quick quips and humor, right?
>

> Perhaps

Too bad..

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 7:06:59 AM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 4:24 AM, NoBrainer brayed like a jackass:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind pointed out the obvious to:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:52:29 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>

>>>> On 2/10/2013 6:35 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
....

>>>> Well, yes, actually "steve" has been asked if his resemblance
>>>> to a sociopathic sexual predator by a similar name was in fact
>>>> him.. "steve" has brushed that aside on many occasions, rather
>>>> than actually deny that he's a convicted felon using someone
>>>> else name, perhaps also for similarly nefarious purposes..
>>>
>>> Obviously, Lochner has no idea what my name is..
>>
>> Sure, you're pretending to not be Steven Cayonne?
>

> BWWWAAAHAAAAA!!!!!

Oh, you shouldn't laugh at "steve" like that..

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 7:14:44 AM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:11:53 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>
>> Man of Mind replied to:

>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

.......

>>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>>
>>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>>
>>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>>

>>> It's that Dunningï¿½Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

>>
>> I prefer to think of it as being a "Google Scholar", something that I
>> really do think is harming the country. Admittedly, looking something up
>> is just as useful as memorizing it, but if you don't know what the right
>> answer ought to be ... well.
>

> Canyon note: See what "makes sense" to a moron?

Examples follow:

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:57:06 -0400
Message-ID: <tauob657rrcuvvfmf...@4ax.com>

"The "Windows 2000 machine" that is referenced by the "NT 5.1"
in the headers of your posts, you dumb loser. <ROTFL>
You mean that you really didn't know that?"

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:37:55 -0400
Message-ID: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>

"That's the one... and BTW, I made a mistake.. NT 5.1 is XP, not W2k."

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:37:55 -0400
Message-ID: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>

"Even after I humiliated Matt for not knowing what a platform token
was.. <LOL> and dumbshit Shook for trying to claim it was something
to do with the browser.."

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500
news: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."

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

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

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>

"Electromagnetic Force = a force by which objects
with electric charge attract OR repel one another"

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT
news:<0t87lu46blkiotfga...@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields

Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>

"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."

Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500
news: <cejm945eqt2hspb4k...@4ax.com>

"I don't need to prove anything.."

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 11:46:16 AM2/11/13

to

On 2/10/2013 5:29 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> You've had your ass handed to you on the 23 million _and_
>> magnetic/capacitive matters as well.
>
> Nope, you're just trying to pretend that your lies have
> any bearing upon the facts, owing to

-snip-

Like for like, Kurt..

http://mittromneycentral.com/tag/underemployed/

ï¿½23 million Americans out of work, or stopped looking for work, or way
underemployed. 23 million. The official unemployment number: 8.3
percent. Thatï¿½s the longest period of time, 42 months, the longest
period of time we have had unemployment above 8 percent in American
history ï¿½ since this has been recorded. This is an extraordinary record
of failure. The Presidentï¿½s policies have not worked because he thinks
government makes America work. Heï¿½s wrong."

Looks like he didn't say "official measure", but he did differentiate
between "official unemployment" and "underemployed".

Bravely run away, "mind"...

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 11:38:59 AM2/11/13

to

On 2/10/2013 5:04 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>
> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
> prod him into telling on himself again..

A disingenuous lie, as the google record shows you've had this very same
discussion with him multiple times in the past, ergo, lacking a memory
failure in your "mind", your alleged "curiosity" is a cheap ruse.

You crave this repetitive engagement, like the alcoholic his bottle.

> It's that Dunningï¿½Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

It's a dry drunk's rage controlling you and causing you to dance here,
on HIS behalf..

Salty Stan

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 11:53:27 AM2/11/13

to

On Feb 11, 5:24 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:43:48 -0600, Man of Mind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2/10/2013 8:31 AM, "steve" <senilecra...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 3:02:05 PM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 11:50 AM, Salty Stan wrote:
>> NASA says that electromagnetic force is what produces electricity.
>> >Lochner says it isn't. <LOL> So who're you gonna believe?
> You know, if Kurt were to follow Zepp's example and disappear, we
> wouldn't have anyone left to pick on...

Suppose he followed "Zepp's" lead and began to express public dismay
over Obama's drone-kill policy and refusal to close Gitmo as promised?

Yeah, like that'll ever happen...

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 4:50:32 PM2/11/13

to

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:09:17 -0700, Spokane Social Club
<s...@kane.invalid> wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 6:25 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> So put down the bottle
>>
>> I did, almost nine years ago, little "steve"..
>
>But not the rage, that was never abandoned...Kurt..

Dry alcoholics create their own problems...

Unfortunately when many former drinkers go through the grieving
process over the loss of their old friend, the bottle, some never get
past the anger stage.

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 4:50:33 PM2/11/13

to

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:45:41 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:51:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>
>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined desperately:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>........
>>>>>>>>> I know enough to know
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>>>>>>>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>>>>>>>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're losers... like you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
>>>>>> like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..
>>>
>>> You meant "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 4:50:33 PM2/11/13

to

>>>>> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

>>>>
>>>> <LOL> So when is
>>>
>>> Hey, "steve".

Hey, Licknuts...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 4:50:33 PM2/11/13

to

...that so many of the Usenet leftists are unable to earn a living...
yes, it is sad... but it's probably due to them being drunks...

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 4:50:33 PM2/11/13

to

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:49:16 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:25:21 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:53:09 -0600, Man of Mind was still exploiting:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>.......
>>>>>>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
>>>>> that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here, give it another try..
>>>>>
>>>>> "You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"
>>>
>>> Brav

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 6:32:22 PM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 12:50 PM, "faulty sham" ,wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>
> On Feb 10, 8:01 pm, "steve" <senile...@yahooooo.com> was still sniveling at:

One more time, since you're having such difficulties understanding
even the most basic concepts you're strutting around so proudly
about..

Crayon 'googled a bit' and thought he'd state:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source

"Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"

I say that's all too simplistic, and rather stupid of him..

Here's why, from one of "steve's" own cites..

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

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

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

I know this must be a real blow to your frail egos..

>> NASA says that electromagnetic force is what produces electricity.

I said that magnetic fields, contrary to your 'google a bit' claims,
do not create, per Faraday's Law of Induction, an electrical field,
particularly out of nothing, as it would violate the conservation
of energy..

But, that's why I keep teasing you and Crayon about it, you really
don't know how little you grasp of this subject (and many others)..

>> Lochner says it isn't. <LOL> So who're you gonna believe?
>
> You know, if Kurt were to follow Zepp's example and disappear, we
> wouldn't have anyone left to pick on...

*>LOL!<* You two sound so smug and self-assured, and thus your
pride goeth before the fall..

Deal with it..

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

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 6:34:59 PM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 3:50 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:45:41 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:51:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined desperately:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

..........

>>>>>>>>>> I know enough to know
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>>>>>>>>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>>>>>>>>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They're losers... like you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
>>>>>>> like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..
>>>>
>>>> You meant "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?

*>cricket.wav<*

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 6:41:55 PM2/11/13

to

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:32:22 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/11/2013 12:50 PM, "faulty sham" ,wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>
>> On Feb 10, 8:01 pm, "steve" <senile...@yahooooo.com> was still sniveling at:
>
>One more time,

OK...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NASA says that electromagnetic force is what produces electricity.

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 6:41:55 PM2/11/13

to

Indeed.. see below:

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 6:40:11 PM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 4:32 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> I said that magnetic fields, contrary to your 'google a bit' claims,
> do not create, per Faraday's Law of Induction, an electrical field,
> particularly out of nothing, as it would violate the conservation
> of energy..

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 9:50:59 PM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 10:32 AM, Spammy's Sockpuppet Circus whined again:
>
> On 2/10/2013 4:53 PM, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>
>> On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>>>

>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
.......

>>>>>>> <CHUCKLE> Why don't you go arguw with UC at Davis..
>>>>
>>>> "arguw with UC"?
>>>
>>> <ROTFL> The best
>>
>> Is that the best you can type, "steve"? You don't even
>> check to see if you're spelling your posting correctly?
>>
>> Wow, I'd read about cases like yours and how your poor
>> self-esteem causing you bluster abject nonsense, contrary
>> to established facts..
>>
>> F'rinstance..

>>
>>>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>>>
>>>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>>
>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>
>> You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
>> that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?
>>
>> Here, give it another try..
>>

>> "You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"

*>cricket.wav<*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

>>>>> <LOL> Lochner stupidly argues that the UC Davis has it all wrong
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I'm simply pointing out how *YOU* have it all bass-ackwards..
>>>
>>> I quoted The University of California at Davis
>>
>> That's called an "appeal to authority" fallacy argument, "steve"..
>>
>> Meanwhile, back in the real world:

>>
>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf
>>
>> 5.6 Creating Electric Fields
>>
>> "Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
>> is no electric charge present, and there never has been
>> any electric charge present in the past, then there would
>> be no electric field anywhere [in] space."
>>

>>> and Lochner that they are wrong..
>>
>> Stumbling all over yourself today, are you?

Well, it's hard to imagine that someone who thinks that
capacitors are somehow "magnetic" would have the slightest
clue, past a "google a bit"..

Example follows..

>>>>>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>>>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>>>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>>>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>>>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>>>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who?
>>>>>
>>>>> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
>>>> has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
>>>> a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
>>>> electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
>>>> in that field of study.
>>>
>>> <LOL> Now Lochner claims that the University of California at Davis
>>
>> Is wrong, just like you. Even your political opinions
>> are just a reversed, likely the result of brain damage
>> and artificial pride in your ambitious 'bluster and spit'..
>
> Omg!

Frightening, isn't it? Everything you think you know about
physics, electromagnetism in particular, is just a false
generalization to help get a faint grasp of the subject,
to be followed up later in college, where you learn to
reach beyond those crude approximations from high school..

http://www.physics.tamuk.edu/~suson/html/4323/emtheory.html

Similarly, those BLS figures stated by Romney acolytes
using the alternative "U6" totals have been debunked as
nothing more than a desperate move by the Teapublicans
after actual unemployment figures declined below 8%
and the stock market went past 14,000 again..

And then "jane" posted the prattle from Michelle Maudlin's
web-site about how "President Obamaï¿½s health care law will
push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance
coverage"?

Tell me who is being "pwned" again? *>LOL!<*

--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental

gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling

Steve

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 10:14:55 PM2/11/13

to

Actually, some long AC lines will go strongly leading when lightly
loaded.

So, in that sense an AC power transmission system will
>have higher losses than a DC system all things being equal. However, all
>things aren't equal. The advantage that DC couldn't compete with is
>transmission voltages. Because in DC the end user line voltage was the same
>as the transmission line voltage, and the end user could only have voltage
>of a certain reasonable limit.

errr, we're talking transmission lines here... and now days, ac/dc
conversion can easily be done.

Trying plugging your toaster into an 11kV
>socket in your home and you will get the idea. That meant long runs of very
>high gauge lines (Read EXPENSIVE) to both carry the current necessary and
>try to reduce loses from line resistance at those current loads. An AC
>system on the other hand can be generated at much higher voltages for
>transmission reducing the current needed (which drastically lowers line
>resistance loses for the power carried) and the expense of the transmission
>lines themselves. Even accepting the inductive and transformer loses an AC
>distribution system was far more economical and wasted less power than any
>but the most limited local DC systems. Today that could potentially be
>changed since low cost DC/DC converters can be made that provide a massively
>high efficiency in voltage conversion. However, there isn't likely a chance
>in hell of redoing the entire nation wide system at this late date.

No, but it's not nosegay to do that.. DC is not practical for most
applications.

>You may now return to your bitch session with hopefully a bit more knowledge
>at your disposal.
>

Let me explain the issue here. A long time ago I suggested that one
of the benefits of DC transmission lines over Ac was that DC didn't
have reactive losses... Kurt promptly disagreed. Another thing you
may not know is that DC transmission line loading can be, and usually
is controlled. These transmission lines will have relatively level
flows.

AC transmission flows are controlled by the relative phase angle. DC
has regulated flow and it also is not phase synchronized.

>>>> NASA says that electromagnetic force is what produces electricity.
>>

>> I said that magnetic fields, contrary to your 'google a bit' claims,
>> do not create, per Faraday's Law of Induction, an electrical field,
>> particularly out of nothing, as it would violate the conservation
>> of energy..
>>
>> But, that's why I keep teasing you and Crayon about it, you really
>> don't know how little you grasp of this subject (and many others)..
>>

>>>> Lochner says it isn't. <LOL> So who're you gonna believe?
>>>

>>> You know, if Kurt were to follow Zepp's example and disappear, we
>>> wouldn't have anyone left to pick on...
>>
>> *>LOL!<* You two sound so smug and self-assured, and thus your
>> pride goeth before the fall..
>>
>> Deal with it..
>

> Electromagnetic force is the force that produces electricity..

Nope.. It's the electrons, stupid..

> Thus, electromagnetic force is the force
> that exists between the plates of a charged capacitor.

Nope, the magnetic fields cancel each other out, same
as with EHV-DC transmission lines, you blathering moron..

> Of course it's also the force that charges those plates...

Nope, that would be that thing called "potential difference"..

> Electromagnetic force is one of the four forces of nature

Yes, you've gotten one answer correct, finally. However,
you've deliberate avoided delving into the subject deeper,
past your usual 'google a bit'..

One of us took the calculus-based physics courses in
Electric and Magnetic Fields, and I'm completely
certain that it wasn't you, owing to your concrete
operationalist behavior (eg 'bluster and spit'),
as well as your prepubescent comprehension of politics..

--

max headroom

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 10:53:25 PM2/11/13

to

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in news:k9bjh8dami3er9ueo...@4ax.com:

> Let me explain the issue here....

In talk.politics.guns? Why?

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 11:07:18 PM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 6:14 AM, Man of Mind was laughing yet again at:

>
> On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:11:53 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind replied to:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>>

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

>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the
>>>>>>> histrionics of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
........

>>>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>>>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>>>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>>>

>>>> It's that Dunningï¿½Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

>>>
>>> I prefer to think of it as being a "Google Scholar", something that I
>>> really do think is harming the country. Admittedly, looking something up
>>> is just as useful as memorizing it, but if you don't know what the right
>>> answer ought to be ... well.
>>
>> Canyon note: See what "makes sense" to a moron?
>
> Examples follow:
>

> From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:57:06 -0400
> Message-ID: <tauob657rrcuvvfmf...@4ax.com>
>
> "The "Windows 2000 machine" that is referenced by the "NT 5.1"
> in the headers of your posts, you dumb loser. <ROTFL>
> You mean that you really didn't know that?"
>
> From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:37:55 -0400
> Message-ID: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>
>
> "That's the one... and BTW, I made a mistake.. NT 5.1 is XP, not W2k."
>
> From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:37:55 -0400
> Message-ID: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>
>
> "Even after I humiliated Matt for not knowing what a platform token
> was.. <LOL> and dumbshit Shook for trying to claim it was something
> to do with the browser.."
>
> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
> Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500
> news: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>
>
> "Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
> exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."
>
> Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
> news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
>
> "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
>
> Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
> news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "Electromagnetic Force = a force by which objects
> with electric charge attract OR repel one another"
>
> Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
> Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT
> news:<0t87lu46blkiotfga...@4ax.com>
>
> "The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
> significant magnetic fields
>
> Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
> news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
>
> "I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
>
> Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
> Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500
> news: <cejm945eqt2hspb4k...@4ax.com>
>
> "I don't need to prove anything.."

*>cricket.wav<*

--
Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing
one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 11:10:47 PM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 3:50 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:03:47 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:16:42 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 7:25 PM, Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined with:

....

>>>> I haven't seen anything about his 'blog in a while,
>>>> unless you're commenting on his tag-lines. Gosh, did
>>>> you get your widdle feelings hurt by the big bad Zepp?
>>>>
>>>> You undoubtedly need years of therapy now after being
>>>> scarred for life by his quick quips and humor, right?
>>>
>>> Perhaps
>>
>> Too bad..
>
> ...that so many of the Usenet leftists

Back to demonizing your opponent because your ideas
are but irritable gestures and immature epithets, eh?

Too bad for you, hunh?

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 11:13:58 PM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 5:41 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:34:59 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 2/11/2013 3:50 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:45:41 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:

>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:51:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined desperately:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

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

>>>>>>>>>>>> I know enough to know
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>>>>>>>>>>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>>>>>>>>>>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They're losers... like you
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
>>>>>>>>> like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You meant "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?

*>cricket.wav<*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 11:42:57 PM2/11/13

to

On 2/11/2013 3:50 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined loudly:
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:55:09 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined loudly:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:29:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM,"steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined impotently:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:04:04 -0600, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 5:35 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

..........

>>>>>>>>>> Let's see.. You're *STILL* trying to say that 'magnetic fields
>>>>>>>>>> create electrical fields' when in fact, it's exactly the opposite
>>>>>>>>>> of what you're whining and pouting about because your ability
>>>>>>>>>> to look up actual facts on the Internet is limited to your abject
>>>>>>>>>> lack of comprehension and prepubescent emotional maturity..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, I'll be chuckling about that the rest of the day!..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm still chuckling over the following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Crayon, let me break it to you gently..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're completely wrong, and all your rationalizations,
>>>>>>>> personal attacks and excuses won't change that fact..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you seriously still arguing with the idiot about this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I was curious as to where he came up with this crap
>>>>>> about "magnetic capacitors" and such, so I thought I might
>>>>>> prod him into telling on himself again..
>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's that Dunningï¿½Kruger effect, coming into play with him..
>>>>>
>>>>> <LOL> So when is
>>>>
>>>> Hey, "steve".. You're desperately appealing to a false
>>>> conclusion, based upon your grade-school comprehension again..
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with that.. *><LOL!<*
>>>
>>> Yes,
>>
>> Here's a hint, from one of your own cites..
>>
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>>
>> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
>> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
>> other three fundamental forces that they can be
>> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
>> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
>> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
>> corrections."
>
> Hey, Licknuts...

*>LOL!<* You're so simple-minded, it's a good thing
ignorance like yours doesn't hurt. Watching you try
to lie your way out of your own deliberate ignorance
and intellectual laziness is actually rather funny..

But, let's look at what you "googled a bit"..

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source

"Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"

Okay, 'roughly speaking', as in the circumstances in
a motor or generator, that's somewhat true, only
because there are free electrons available in a conductor
that a magnetic field can easily influence. But, in
empty space, where there are no "charges" (eg electrons),
a magnetic field cannot create anything, especially
an 'electric field', as that would violate the conservation
of energy, and you know you don't want to do that, right?

But, that's where your 'googling' fails you...

Also, you didn't compare how much stronger electric fields
are than simple magnetic fields, or the strong and weak
nuclear forces, much less gravity, which I tired to hint
you towards with a simple two-part physics question that
compared electric fields and magnetic fields..

If you had even a faint inkling about any of that, past
your usual 'googled' information, you'd be apologizing
to me immediately, before all your false bravado and
pompous primate posturing started..

Similarly, the manure, er.. nonsense being spread by the
right-wing news organs, er.. 'media' (eg. Michelle Maudlin,
Lush Rumpjaw, and Inannity) and the rest of the bleating,
er.. talking heads in the mainstream broadcasting business
is but the 'pwning' of simple-minded people..

And you wouldn't want to be a simple minded sheople,
because you Republicans like to see yourselves as rugged
individualists, like Ronny Saint Reagan, the B-movie star
that acted opposite a chimpanzee, not to be confused with
W. Bush..

Scout

unread,

Feb 11, 2013, 11:43:05 PM2/11/13

to

"Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message

news:k9bjh8dami3er9ueo...@4ax.com...

Agreed, but with such a light loading the losses still are really are pretty
minimal.

> So, in that sense an AC power transmission system will
>>have higher losses than a DC system all things being equal. However, all
>>things aren't equal. The advantage that DC couldn't compete with is
>>transmission voltages. Because in DC the end user line voltage was the
>>same
>>as the transmission line voltage, and the end user could only have voltage
>>of a certain reasonable limit.
>
> errr, we're talking transmission lines here... and now days, ac/dc
> conversion can easily be done.

AC/DC conversion can be....but converting DC to AC is not particularly
efficient, particularly when large inductive loads are involved.

So perhaps a switchover could be done, but I question whether you would
really see an energy savings that would justify the expense.

Particularly when you consider that I can feed 3 full load power lines over
4 wires. DC would deliver only twice that over 3 lines. -DC, +DC and common.

So right off you're cutting the capacity of most main lines by 1/3.

> Trying plugging your toaster into an 11kV
>>socket in your home and you will get the idea. That meant long runs of
>>very
>>high gauge lines (Read EXPENSIVE) to both carry the current necessary and
>>try to reduce loses from line resistance at those current loads. An AC
>>system on the other hand can be generated at much higher voltages for
>>transmission reducing the current needed (which drastically lowers line
>>resistance loses for the power carried) and the expense of the
>>transmission
>>lines themselves. Even accepting the inductive and transformer loses an
>>AC
>>distribution system was far more economical and wasted less power than any
>>but the most limited local DC systems. Today that could potentially be
>>changed since low cost DC/DC converters can be made that provide a
>>massively
>>high efficiency in voltage conversion. However, there isn't likely a
>>chance
>>in hell of redoing the entire nation wide system at this late date.
>
> No, but it's not nosegay to do that.. DC is not practical for most
> applications.

Agreed, but that really wasn't what I was debating. I was challenging the
claim that DC power transmission would have no inductive reactance

>>You may now return to your bitch session with hopefully a bit more
>>knowledge
>>at your disposal.
>>
>
>
>
> Let me explain the issue here. A long time ago I suggested that one
> of the benefits of DC transmission lines over Ac was that DC didn't
> have reactive losses... Kurt promptly disagreed. Another thing you
> may not know is that DC transmission line loading can be, and usually
> is controlled. These transmission lines will have relatively level
> flows.

How exactly do you control the load on the lines?

The power industry would love to be able to have all lines working at
exactly 95% of rated capacity 95% of the time.

However, in reality they have to design for peak power, and most of the time
the loads on lines are far less than design limits.

>
> AC transmission flows are controlled by the relative phase angle. DC
> has regulated flow and it also is not phase synchronized.

Sorry but phase angles are set and constant. If they weren't then any power
plant that tried to tie in without matching phase angles would blow every
breaker they have, and the moment you are tied in you are synced with every
other power plant out there.

Second, flow is determined by loads. In some limited cases you can regulate
loads on specific lines by deciding which loads will be attached to which
lines. But the load isn't going to increase just because a guy at the power
plant decides people should turn on more lights.

Spokane Social Club

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 12:08:12 AM2/12/13

to

On 2/11/2013 7:50 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Similarly, those BLS figures stated by Romney acolytes
> using the alternative "U6" totals have been debunked

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 6:55:03 AM2/12/13

to

On 2/11/2013 11:16 PM, Spammy's SOckpuppet Circus whined:
>
> On 2/11/2013 9:13 PM, Man of Mind was enjoying the desperation of:
>>
>> On 2/11/2013 5:41 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:

>>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:34:59 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/11/2013 3:50 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:45:41 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:51:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined desperately:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know enough to know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They're losers... like you
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
>>>>>>>>>>> like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You meant "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>
>> *>cricket.wav<*
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction
>>
>> You might want to do a little more reading before you embarrass
>> and humiliate yourself any further, "steve".. *>chuckling<*

http://ptuece.loremate.com/emf/node/3

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:22:30 -0400
Message-ID: <h0lob6dote71d0u9j...@4ax.com>

"In a capacitor, attraction of unlike charges build up
across the dielectric. as a result of the electromagnetic
force."

"Electromagnetic force is what makes current flow into
a capacitor (charging) and it's what makes current flow
out (discharging)"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source

"Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"

Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>

"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."

Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT

Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>

"I don't need to prove anything.."

--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental

gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling

Man of Mind

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 7:01:57 AM2/12/13

to

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 7:29:05 AM2/12/13

to

On 2/11/2013 10:49 AM, Spammy's Sockpuppet Circus deleted/bleated:
>
> On 2/10/2013 4:59 PM, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>
>> On 2/10/2013 3:46 PM, Spammy's Sockpuppet Circus whined again:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 11:18 AM, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600, Man of Mind continued laughing at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 8:57 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
.........
>>>>>>>>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture
>>>>>>>>> with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The requested URL /~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>>>>>>> was not found on this server."

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase
>>>>>>>>> "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa"
>>>>>>>>> in a lecture summary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Has the phrase".. *>giggle<* You depend upon Google for
>>>>>>>> just about every thing you blather so triumphantly about..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> F'rinstance, you think 'electric fields' are created by magnetism,
>>>>>>>> when in fact, it's completely opposite of what you're drooling:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges
>>>>>>>> and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles
>>>>>>>> associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The server at zope.cs.panam.edu is taking too long to respond."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sort of like your postings, too long to respond, and much
>>>>>>>> ado about nothing, all sound and fury, but no substance..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We should feel sorry for Lochner
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who?
>>>>>
>>>>> You, Lochner. Are you really denying your own identity
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how this imagined "identity" on your behalf
>>>> has anything to do with how you've managed to 'google up'
>>>> a bunch of faulty cites that do not agree with modern
>>>> electrical engineering, and the basic concepts taught
>>>> in that field of study.
>>>

>>> Is it really "imagined"?
>>
>> Are you really a 'social club', or just another
>> right-wing sock-puppet with a full ego diaper?
>
> I'm every bit as much as social club as you are a 'man of mind'..

Tell me, why do you keep trying to embarrass yourself
with your infantile blatherings?

Steve

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 8:33:04 AM2/12/13

to

...and yet NASA says it's Electromagnetic force, Dummy. <LOL> So why
don't you call them and tell them that they are wrong too?

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

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

Steve

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 8:33:04 AM2/12/13

to

>>>>>>> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

>>>>>>
>>>>>> <LOL> So when is
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, "steve".. You're desperately appealing to a false
>>>>> conclusion, based upon your grade-school comprehension again..
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck with that.. *><LOL!<*
>>>>
>>>> Yes,
>>>
>>> Here's a hint, from one of your own cites..
>>>
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3
>>>
>>> "In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
>>> repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
>>> other three fundamental forces that they can be
>>> considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
>>> molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
>>> apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
>>> corrections."
>>
>> Hey, Licknuts...
>
>*>LOL!<* You're so

LOchner is so dumb as to think the paragraph above contradicts what I
said... It doesn't.

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

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

Electromagnetic force is the force that produces electricity..

Thus, electromagnetic force is the force
that exists between the plates of a charged capacitor.

Of course it's also the force that charges those plates...

Electromagnetic force is one of the four forces of nature

which produces electricity... ...as stated (below) by
real physicists at NASA

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

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

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

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

NASA says that electromagnetic force is what produces electricity.

Steve

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 8:33:04 AM2/12/13

to

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:13:58 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/11/2013 5:41 PM, Steve wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:34:59 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 2/11/2013 3:50 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:45:41 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:51:54 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined desperately:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Matt replied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:59:19 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at the histrionics of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 10:02 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>............
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know enough to know
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, actually, you really don't. Pretending otherwise is
>>>>>>>>>>>> but 'bluster and spit' on your own behalf, and says that
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're extremely jealous of the both of them, as well as,,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They're losers... like you
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, you keep whining about your imagined superiority
>>>>>>>>>> like a frightened child, which is less than convincing..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You meant "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

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

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

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

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

Canyon: OK

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

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"

www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.

http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Steve

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 8:33:04 AM2/12/13

to

>>>>> It's that Dunning�Kruger effect, coming into play with him..

...and definitely not to trailer trash morons like Lochner...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 8:33:04 AM2/12/13

to

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:42:36 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/11/2013 3:50 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:49:16 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>
>>> On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:25:21 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 7:01 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined because:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:53:09 -0600, Man of Mind was still exploiting:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 4:48 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered again:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:15 -0600, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2013 11:47 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered at:
>.........
>>>>>>>>>> "According to Faraday's law
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Poor dumb Lochner
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't answer my question. Got something to hide,
>>>>>>> that your "little bit of googling" didn't tell you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here, give it another try..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "You mean "Faraday's Law of Induction", right?"

Steve

unread,

Feb 12, 2013, 8:33:04 AM2/12/13

to

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:10:47 -0600, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/11/2013 3:50 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:03:47 -0600, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 2/11/2013 4:30 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:16:42 -0600, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2013 7:25 PM, Flapsjaw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined with:
>....
>>>>> I haven't seen anything about his 'blog in a while,
>>>>> unless you're commenting on his tag-lines. Gosh, did
>>>>> you get your widdle feelings hurt by the big bad Zepp?
>>>>>
>>>>> You undoubtedly need years of therapy now after being
>>>>> scarred for life by his quick quips and humor, right?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps
>>>
>>> Too bad..
>>

>> ...that so many of the Usenet leftists are alcoholics
>
>Back

yes, back when LOchner was hauled into court over child support
payments..

Re: 7 Million will not receive employer provided health care insurance - who keeps making this silly crap up?

Man of Mind

Steve

Man of Mind

Steve

Man of Mind

Spokane Social Club

Steve

Man of Mind

Steve

Steve

Steve

Man of Mind

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Steve

Slackjaw

Man of Mind

Spokane Social Club

Matt

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Steve

Steve

Steve

Matt

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

NoBody

Steve

Steve

Steve

Steve

Steve

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Salty Stan

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Salty Stan

Spokane Social Club

Steve

Steve

Steve

Steve

Steve

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Steve

Steve

Spokane Social Club

Spokane Social Club

Steve

Scout

Slackjaw

Man of Mind

Steve

hanson

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

Man of Mind

max headroom