Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

by AlanF 122 Replies latest jw friends

dark clouds

come come now janh
that last one was surely a brain fart. wasn't it??
please astound the readers with your diametric views on life, and your infinite source of wisdom [8>]
AlanF

To emyrose
: AlanF, come on now you can do better than that.
Of course, but seeing as how you're such a tender flower, I thought I'd
go easy on you.
: "So how's the basket coming?"
Well, given your demonstrated inability to actually reason on whatever
topics you've wandered into, and your focus on people rather than issues,
I figured basket weaving would be a challenging course of study. Given
that you seem to recognize a joke when you see it, perhaps I misjudged you.
So what courses are you taking? Any that require real mental discipline?
Or things like introduction to music appreciation? Are you taking courses
that will really do something for you? Or just whatever you can to be able
to say you went to college?
: Remember prejudiced remarks are for the..ignorant lil poor folk
: like me. I sho is thankful though for your advice on which rithing
: courses to takes. I'ma supposing ya doesn't think ebonics is any
: good, huh. You isn't racist is you? hummm
Your implications of racism on my part are on a par with your other
reasoning abilities. Apparently you're black -- otherwise you wouldn't
bring up this silliness. Somehow you seem to think I knew your color.
Well I didn't. And until you brought this up, I never thought about
it. So who is the racist here?
Besides, how do you know I'm not black?
My remarks have nothing to do with prejudice, except that I might admit
to prejudice against stupid remarks from any quarter.
: BTW, I buy my baskets from the shop downstairs from my high-rise
: building apt. in the silk-stocking district in manhattan, dum dum.
Oh. I'm glad you don't steal from your employer.
AlanF
emyrose

AlanF,
Are you saying I work for the shop downstairs, from my Apt and steal?
Well, whatever gave that idea, hummm?
What kind of person would say that, hummmmm?
As for you thinking that a basket weaving course would be challenging to study,
please don't give me that bullshit.
Your exact words: So how's the basket coming?
Nothing about it being a college course, right.
Can you tell me what college has ever had a basket weaving course?
Give me a break, you were responding to my statement about coming
from a simple background or poverty. We know who weaves baskests, right?
It's certainly not college students working on class assignments, right?

BTW, black people are not always bringing up the race issue, well unless they
can detect racism. Neither are they silly for bringing it up.
Anyway, making this statement is racist, asshole!
I now know beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are not black.
Black people would never make such a statement.
Your words: Your implications of racism on my part are on a par with your other
reasoning abilities. Apparently you're black -- otherwise you wouldn't
bring up this silliness.
Kiss my black ass, AlanF
AlanF

To emyrose
My, my, how I've misjudged you.
: Are you saying I work for the shop downstairs, from my Apt and steal?
No. I'm saying that, whoever your employer is, I'm glad you don't steal.
: Well, whatever gave that idea, hummm?
Nothing.
You seem to have a problem comprehending input from your communications ports.
: What kind of person would say that, hummmmm?
A very bad one.
: As for you thinking that a basket weaving course would be challenging
: to study, please don't give me that bullshit.
Actually I think that such a course would be the exact opposite.
That was my point, dear.
: Your exact words: So how's the basket coming?
Right.
: Nothing about it being a college course, right.
No, but the implication of basket weaving was there.
: Can you tell me what college has ever had a basket weaving course?
Pilgrim State.
: Give me a break, you were responding to my statement about coming
: from a simple background or poverty. We know who weaves baskests, right?
Wrong. How could I possibly know your background? I don't know you from Eve.
: It's certainly not college students working on class assignments, right?
Generally, no. But my implication was a very standard and care worn
reference to "basket weaving as practiced by people in mental institutions
like Pilgrim State Hospital." It's such an old and common expression, and
so often used to mildly poke fun at people as if they were nuts, that I
thought you'd understand it immediately. Are telling me you never heard
of "basket weaving" as a joke about mental patients? Am I dating myself?
: BTW, black people are not always bringing up the race issue,
I didn't say they were.
: well unless they can detect racism.
Well some people are overly sensitive. And on a board like this, where
no one has any idea of another's race, and frankly, most people don't
give a rat's ass, thinking you detect it from subtle hints is just stupid.
: Anyway, making this statement is racist, asshole!
I agree! So don't do it again!
: I now know beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are not black.
I'm glad you figured that out. That's why I said it, to see if you could.
: Black people would never make such a statement.
Really. How about polling the black people on this board? There are
quite a few extremely intelligent blacks here. How about JT? He's one
of our most astute posters.
: Your words: Your implications of racism on my part are on a par with
: your other reasoning abilities. Apparently you're black -- otherwise:
: you wouldn't bring up this silliness.
Right, because you yourself said enough words to hint at your race, which
you probably did because of your obvious assumption that I'm not black
and therefore showed prejudice. But I certainly didn't know
anything until you said it in your post here.
But you're doing the same stupid thing with men and women, implying that
males on this board are trashing you just for being female. It's just as
easy to figure out from this silly complaint that you're female as it is
to guess at your race from your other complaints. All of this is stupid
and I wish you wouldn't have brought it up, because it's meaningless.
There are many extremely astute people on this board, my dear. Men, women,
blacks, whites, Asians, whatever. In a faceless online forum, it's not
even all that easy to figure out males from females. And none of it is
important. Online, you live and die by what you write -- nothing else.
As for your implication that I'm racially prejudiced, people who know me
know that that's insane. Racially, I'm mainly northern European with a
bit of Native American, Jewish and Lapplander thrown in. I grew up very
poor, in a racially mixed area, and attended racially mixed JW
congregations when I was still a JW. I dated white and black girls, and
socialized with all kinds of people, including racially mixed couples
after I got married. Among my closest of confidants over the years have
been blacks and people of extremely mixed descent. So don't try to pull
the race bullshit on me, dearie. You can martyr yourself but don't lay
the martyrdom on anyone else.
: Kiss my black ass, AlanF
Oh! My heart! Don't come on to an old man like that! I could collapse!
AlanF
Tallyman

... and if you wanna get beaten by a grrl..

Suzi,
We thinks you have beaten yerself...
and have used the Jawbone of a Jackass to do so.
freeATlast

AlanF:
So when you say that "Einstein's equation does not preclude an object traveling FASTER than the speed of light", you're quite right, because it has nothing to do with velocity at all.
quite right, it deals with momentum actually. Usually, it is convient to square both sides of the equation. I'm not cutting and pasting the whole damn thing into here and then trying to reformat it. Do a Goggle search.
Do you have any idea what an imaginary distance is? Or an imaginary time? Of course not, and neither does anyone else.
Well, first off their NOT imaginary numbers, oh enlightened one. They would be complex numbers (with real and imaginary parts). You know just like the intelligence of this conversation has real (my part) and imaginary parts (what you say).
A brief quote from Stephen Hawking taken from A Brief History of Time (don't have the phyiscal copy in front of me, found the txt OCR'd on the Internet, so no page number. look it up yourself if you think I'm making this up):
"one must use imaginary time... That is to say, for the purposes of calculation, one must measure
time using imaginary numbers, rather than real ones. This has an interesting effect on spacetime:
The distinction between time and space disappears completely... we may regard our use of Euclidean spacetime as merely a mathematical device (or trick) to calculate answers about real spacetime."
gee, AlanF, I guess the Lucasian (sp?) professor at Cambridge (a position once held by Issac Newton himself) is a regular nobody. You need imaginary time for singularities to exist. And you need singularities for black holes to exist, (which as far as we can tell they do since they have been observed in nature).
Now, what do the imaginary parts of the complex roots exactly mean? As far as we can tell NOW, they have no accepted physical meaning. (just several discredited ones including stuff like negative mass) But, that doesn't mean they never will.
Inductors and capacitors have a complex impedance. Remember a complex number has real and imaginary part. Resistance is only the real part of impedance. The imaginary part of the impedance is call the reactance. (I had a dash of EE in school too.)
Just curious AlanF, where oh where did you get your PhD in physics. You sound like you'd have trouble handling the intro physics class at your local community college, brightboy. And man that Stevie Hawking is just some crackpot fundie at Cambridge I guess with his imaginary time. btw, last I heard he was a devout atheist.
well, it's safe to say you have no idea what you are talking about and I await your Farkel-like response of picking out all my typos and grammatical hiccups b/c you know everything else I say is abso-freaking-lutely correct.
you better give up physics and go back to washing the windows. Oh, and please keep whining to Simon to get me banned after I showed you up earlier. Real manly of you I must say.
smile
freeATlast
Scorpion

This is better than the WWF.
emyrose

AlanF,
Let's examine your words again:
Apparently you're black -- otherwise you wouldn't
bring up this silliness.
-------------------------------------------------
What does 'otherwise' do for this statement? Clearly it's
saying that unless I was not black, I would not have brought up
such silliness. Meaning, I would have to be black to say that
silly thing. Cause only a black person would say this, right?
Don't make that sorid defense claim that you aren't racist
because you have black friends, dearie. I don't care if your
wife is black-berry black, it wouldn't necessarily preclude
a racist mentallity. You see, it's not hard for people like
myself to detect racist innuendos, dearie.
-------------------------------------------------
More of your words:
: BTW, I buy my baskets from the shop downstairs from my high-rise
: building apt. in the silk-stocking district in manhattan, dum dum.
Oh. I'm glad you don't steal from your employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------
What connections can be made here, in other words what inferences
can be made here? Well, let's look at the actions in your sentence
and the action in my sentence. I have "buy baskets" and you have
"don't steal from my employer." Further, immediately before making your point, you had been talking about race. So far, according to you I was a dumb and as well as black. So I'm black, stupid, and I buy
baskets from the shop downstairs from my apt., and your statement was,
"I'm glad you don't steal from your employer." So instead of stealing
them I buy them. You're glad I'm not stealing them, because it's always the assumption of prejudiced people that poor blacks steal,
and even if they climb the social ladder and live in a high-riser it
would still be assumed that they continue to be theives.
You little piece of shit, if this is't a typical racist statement,
I don't kmow what the fuck is!
And let's pretend that you are not a racist, well that would still
make you a pompous, sadistic bastard. I have never met anyone like
you and Janh, who take sheer pleasure in ripping people apart.
At first, in the Fraud thread, I thought you were just having a bit
of fun, but now I see both of you have a propensity for attacking
people's intellect and self-esteem, without any regrets or qualms.
It's people like the both of you that make me sick to my stomach.
There is no end to your wicked ways. You keeping pounding and kicking
me, Dark Glouds, Suzie and Freeatlast, non-stop. How very noble
of you. I suppose your are going to cry about how it's not true because you have helped JWs and other cult victims for years. Well,
I don't care if you are mother Theresa, your behavior on this board
doesn't become imaginary because you have helped other people. It
just doesn't dissappear. I made copies already to remind myeslf how I'm not such a worthless person afterall. BTW, in case you have forgotten
I and your other victims a trying to survive post-cult life. FYI, you aren't helping us with your non-stop nasty remarks, instead you may be really
aggravating the situation.
Emyrose
PS, I'm not imagining the sexism I've seen on this JW Board, no matter what others may say. My reasoning abilities are not non-existent. I've may copies of the sexist remarks too.
Mommie Dark

Alan honey sweetie please PLEASE quit scratching these pimpleheads, they are oozing their idiot pus all over the place!
I gotta say, though, I got a real HOOTYHOOT out of dude's rehash of Vonnegut's Tralfamadorian time-travel schtick. I guess literary fancy about science is as real as science for some pimpleheads.
Now quit squeezing the zits Alan. I know it's satisfying when they go 'pop!' but the ooze is really nasty. Let them keep all that smug firmly inside their inflated intellectual pustules where it's all theirs and we don't have to get splashed with it!
AlanF

To freeAtlast:
Good Lord! You're not only nasty, you're about the most ignorant self-proclaimed master of science of I've ever seen!
:: So when you say that "Einstein's equation does not preclude an object traveling FASTER than the speed of light", you're quite right, because it has nothing to do with velocity at all.
: quite right,
So your original claim was wrong.
Strike one.
: it deals with momentum actually.
Really. Let's see now, the equation is: E = m * c^2, or Energy = Mass * velocity^2. Last I heard, energy is not momentum and it has units of kg-m/s^2, whereas momentum is simply Mass * velocity and has units of kg-m/s.
Strike two.
: Usually, it is convient to square both sides of the equation.
Really. Then you get energy squared. That's much good for anything.
: I'm not cutting and pasting the whole damn thing into here and then trying to reformat it. Do a Goggle search.
I don't need to. I know the material.
:: Do you have any idea what an imaginary distance is? Or an imaginary time? Of course not, and neither does anyone else.
: Well, first off their NOT imaginary numbers, oh enlightened one. They would be complex numbers (with real and imaginary parts).
Of course they're pure imaginary numbers. Look at the equations I posted, stupid. Here's the one for the relativistic mass:
m = m0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) where m0 is the rest mass.
Here we have three real quantities on the right side: m0, v and c. If v > c, the square root yields a pure imaginary number which divides into the rest mass. Therefore, for v > c, the equation yields a pure imaginary number.
Strike three.
: You know just like the intelligence of this conversation has real (my part) and imaginary parts (what you say).
Your world is inverted from reality.
Strike four.
: A brief quote from Stephen Hawking taken from A Brief History of Time (don't have the phyiscal copy in front of me, found the txt OCR'd on the Internet, so no page number. look it up yourself if you think I'm making this up):
"one must use imaginary time... That is to say, for the purposes of calculation, one must measure
time using imaginary numbers, rather than real ones. This has an interesting effect on spacetime:
The distinction between time and space disappears completely... we may regard our use of Euclidean spacetime as merely a mathematical device (or trick) to calculate answers about real spacetime."
Your quote shows what kind of stupid conclusions the ignorant make when they try to understand things beyond their ken.
The quote is from page 134, and the parts you left out prove my point. In fact, the very last sentence you quoted proves my point: physics deals with real time in the end, and any use of "imaginary time" is "merely a mathematical device (or trick) to calculate answers about real spacetime."
Strike five.
Here is a more extended quotation along with my commentary that shows what Hawking was talking about:
We don't yet have a complete and consistent theory that combines quantum mechanics and gravity. However, we are fairly certain of some features that such a unified theory should have. One is that it should incorporate Feynman's proposal to formulate quantum theory in terms of a sum over histories. In this approach, a particle does not have just a single history, as it would in a classical theory. Instead, it is supposed to follow every possible path in space-time, and with each of these histories there are associated a couple of numbers, one representing the size of a wave and the other representing its position in the cycle (its phase).
Hawking is talking in non-mathematician's terms about complex numbers, which as you seem to understand, have real and imaginary parts. As I stated, this is what falls out of solving Schroedinger's equation.
The probability that the particle, say, passes thrrough some particular point is found by adding up the waves associated with every possible history that passes through that point. When one actually tries to perform these sums, however, one runs into severe technical problems. The only way around these is the following peculiar prescription: One must add up the waves for particle histories that are not in the "real" time that you and I experience, but take place in what is called imaginary time.
This is the mathematical device or trick Hawking later referred to. Also note: the "sums" (actually the squares of the sums) represent a probability density function in real space-time. Such a function is not a physical quantity, but is yet another mathematical device that allows one to predict the probability that a particle will be found at some particular location.
Imaginary time may sound like science fiction but it is in fact a well-defined mathematical concept. [short lesson in multiplying imaginary numbers deleted] To avoid the technical difficulties with Feynman's sum over histories, one must use imaginary time. That is to say, for the purposes of the calculation one must measure time using imaginary numbers, rather than real ones.
This is precisely what we EE's do when we use complex numbers to represent sine waves of various frequencies and phases, and use Fourier analysis to break actual signals down into their Fourier components. These components have magnitude and phase, just like Feynman's "histories" are associated with numbers representing the magnitude and phase of quantum mechanical probabilities. Fourier analysis results in another "unreal" quantity called "negative frequency", which is just an artifact of the mathematical representation of the signal and has no physical significance.
This has an interesting effect on space-time: the distinction between time and space disappears completely. A space-time in which events have imaginary values of the time coordinate is said to be Euclidean, after the ancient Greek Euclid, who founded the study of geometry of two-dimensional surfaces. What we now call Euclidean space-time is very similar except that it has four dimensions instead of two. In Euclidean space-time there is no difference between the time direction and directions in space. On the other hand, in real space-time, in which events are labeled by ordinary, real values of the time coordinate, it is easy to tell the difference -- the time direction at all points lies within the light cone, and space directions lie outside.
In other words, in this four dimensional space-time called "Euclidean space-time", where for purposes of calculation time can have imaginary values, time can run backwards. In real space-time, however, time does not run backwards. That's why in real space-time "imaginary time", such as pops out of the various equations of special relativity when you plug in a velocity greater than the speed of light, is meaningless.
By now you should also see that the "imaginary time" that results from velocities greater than the speed of light has absolutely nothing to do with what Hawking is talking about, which proves that you don't understand what you read about science.
Strike six.
In any case, as far as everyday quantum mechanics is concerned, we may regard our use of imaginary time and Euclidean space-time as merely a mathematical device (or trick) to calculate events about real space-time.
By this time interested readers will have seen your ridiculous error in trying to claim that this last quoted statement has anything at all to do with your point.
Strike seven.
: gee, AlanF, I guess the Lucasian (sp?) professor at Cambridge (a position once held by Issac Newton himself) is a regular nobody.
Not at all. But you've shown yourself to be a thoroughgoing dickhead who is too stupid to realize how stupid he is. More examples of that are forthcoming.
: You need imaginary time for singularities to exist. And you need singularities for black holes to exist, (which as far as we can tell they do since they have been observed in nature).
Here's a challenge, dickhead: present an equation that shows why imaginary time is necessary for black holes to exist. No hand waving permitted.
: Now, what do the imaginary parts of the complex roots exactly mean? As far as we can tell NOW, they have no accepted physical meaning. (just several discredited ones including stuff like negative mass) But, that doesn't mean they never will.
The imaginary numbers Hawking talks about do indeed have physical meaning. Not directly by themselves, any more than the negative frequencies that fall out of Fourier analysis have direct physical meaning, but when the mathematical devices and tricks are applied using these "unphysical" numbers, you get answers that represent reality very well. Thus, we again see you have no idea what you're talking about.
Strike eight.
: Inductors and capacitors have a complex impedance.
Wrong, they have pure imaginary impedances.
The impedance of an inductor is jwL and the impedance of a capacitor is 1/jwC, where "j" is the EE's equivalent of "i", and "w" (omega) is 2*PI*frequency.
Strike nine.
: Remember a complex number has real and imaginary part. Resistance is only the real part of impedance.
Inductors and capacitors have no resistive component, dickhead.
Strike ten.
: The imaginary part of the impedance is call the reactance. (I had a dash of EE in school too.)
You appear to have misunderstood all of it.
: Just curious AlanF, where oh where did you get your PhD in physics.
I never said I did. I said I took a lot of Ph.D. courses in math and physics.
You can't read. Strike eleven.
: You sound like you'd have trouble handling the intro physics class at your local community college, brightboy.
You statement shows just how stupid you are.
Strike twelve.
: And man that Stevie Hawking is just some crackpot fundie at Cambridge I guess with his imaginary time. btw, last I heard he was a devout atheist.
Pointless ad hominem.
Strike thirteen.
: well, it's safe to say you have no idea what you are talking about
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Strike fourteen.
: and I await your Farkel-like response of picking out all my typos and grammatical hiccups
For you, you didn't do too badly this time. But your real errors are so ridiculous that it would be guilding the dung heap to add them to your score.
: b/c you know everything else I say is abso-freaking-lutely correct.
Right.
Strike fifteen.
: you better give up physics and go back to washing the windows. Oh, and please keep whining to Simon to get me banned after I showed you up earlier. Real manly of you I must say.
Bathory, you're about the biggest asshole I've ever come across. Several people have told me that you're not only braindead, but a true mental case. Give it up before those nice young men in their clean white coats come to take you away HA HA!
AlanF

Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

Share this