Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • "my job here is done," brownback said as he floated into the sky on his umbrella, an emaciated george banks crying and sucking the marrow out of the bones of his children beneath him

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Brother Daniel

1
Poor little Heinz.  Caught in a lie, he foams at the mouth,
Fuck you.
doubles down on his lie,
Quote from: HH
You posted nothing but gibberish with undefined variables.
and compounds it by adding another blatant lie.
Quote from: HH
You ran away, right here in this thread, when you realized the cart on the treadmill will advance when the wheels slip.

I used to think Heinz's case against ddwfttw was based on honest confusion about physics, but it turns out that there's nothing honest about it.
2
semper isn't saying that p=fv is wrong. He's saying that your conclusion based on it is wrong, implying that the mistake is in your derivation. That p=fv is correct, but that your application is wrong.
This has been pointed out to Heinz many times, but he's either too dishonest to acknowledge it or too stupid to understand it (or, most likely, both).
If all you have is snide comments you can fuck off. I will talk physics to anyone who wants to but I will not answer to your horseshit.
I have presented plenty of physics, as you know perfectly well.  First you run away, then you lie about it.
3
In any case, my application of the equation is correct and nobody here has shown otherwise, including you.
I recently provided a link to a post where I did just that, in some detail.
4
semper isn't saying that p=fv is wrong. He's saying that your conclusion based on it is wrong, implying that the mistake is in your derivation. That p=fv is correct, but that your application is wrong.
This has been pointed out to Heinz many times, but he's either too dishonest to acknowledge it or too stupid to understand it (or, most likely, both).
5
just the same old ad-homs eh?
You don't have any idea what "ad-hom" means.
The only thing you have ever shown is that you do not understand how a propeller works. You have even contradicted the experts that I have cited.
That's a straight-up outright lie.
Quote from: Heinz
The only "math" that you have posted was some bullshit equations with undefined variables.
Another lie.  You know perfectly well that I made clear what my variables stood for.

Now that, (what I bolded) is an outright LIE. You never identified the variable you introduced into your bullshit "equations" in order to "prove" ddwfttw.
If you really believed that, you would have pointed it out at the time (and asked for clarification), rather than using it long after the fact as an excuse for your inability to follow simple math.

Perhaps you could go back to one of my posts and indicate which variable you think I left unidentified.

6
just the same old ad-homs eh?
You don't have any idea what "ad-hom" means.
The only thing you have ever shown is that you do not understand how a propeller works. You have even contradicted the experts that I have cited.
That's a straight-up outright lie.
Quote from: Heinz
The only "math" that you have posted was some bullshit equations with undefined variables.
Another lie.  You know perfectly well that I made clear what my variables stood for.
7
I predict that no matter what happens with ANY experiment, analysis, or explanation, Heinz will continue to be astonishingly stupid and deny what's right there for everyone to see.
Predictions are more fun when they're at least a little bit risky.  This one isn't at all.
8
Those wheels that are held in place are just spinning due to the belt running under them and they are not in any sense rolling!
^ ^ A demonstration that Heinz will say any old shit that pops into his head, regardless of how retarded it is.
Quote from: Heinz
You have never addressed the simple equation that Power = Force x Velocity. That says that the thrust force is always less than wheel drag force as long as the cart has traction!
No, it doesn't say that at all.

P = F v seems to be Heinz's favourite equation, yet he does not have the faintest idea of how to apply it correctly.

We've been through this in some detail.  Here I unpack his argument and show where it goes wrong.  Here he confirms that I represented his argument faithfully, but then confuses himself about which reference frame he's working in.  It's worth following the conversation for the next few posts after that.  He makes a trivial dumb error about the rate at which the wheels are turning, then when he realizes it he fails to acknowledge it (demonstrating his lack of integrity).  That conversation concludes here; I point out that he's still being inconsistent about what frame he's using, and he has no reply to that.
9
Your assumption that the belt is in uniform linear motion is incorrect.
Thanks for the response, but I made no such assumption.  If you don't agree, maybe you can point out precisely where in my argument that assumption was used.  Bear in mind that Galilean relativity is valid regardless of what kind of motion is involved (as long as it is non-relativistic).
Quote
JWe accept the surface of the earth as a nearly inertial frame even though it has an angular velocity of 7.2921159 × 10−5 rad/sec but surely you would never accept 105 rad/sec as being an inertial frame and you would never claim a Galilean transform of such motion.
I think this indicates where the confusion lies.  I certainly would "claim a Galilean transform of such motion" - at least, if what that means is that the Galilean transforms of it are valid physical solutions.  Given any physically possible system or motion, all of its Galilean transforms are also physically possible systems or motions (again, ignoring finite speed of light effects).
Heinz misses the point of relativity (whether Galilean or otherwise); he appears to think that you're not allowed to do a GT on any system where something is accelerating.
10
Amusing to see Heinz still plugging his moronic "cyclic" fantasy.
Your cyclic hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked.  You seem to think that by repeating it over and over again, you can magically transform it from something stupid into something true.
Oh? Where and when did this "debunking" happen? Please provide a link.
You could start with this demonstration that your arguments for it are self-contradictory.
11
it would be helpful to see specific rebuttals on his statements
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

I (and several others) have previously gone painstakingly point-by-point through many of his posts, explaining exactly where he goes wrong.  But he doesn't really engage with those rebuttals; he just keeps recycling the same material and repeating the same errors.

I'm not really bothered by the fact that he doesn't understand basic physics.  There's no sin in that.  What's really remarkable, though, is the misplaced effort.  Look at the work he puts into elaborating on his "arguments" (lol) against the cart.  Imagine if he put even half of that effort into actually learning about physics.  The conversation would have looked entirely different.
12
I am already well familiar with the physics.
You repeatedly prove otherwise.
13
His plans should include releasing some helium balloons and trying to outrun them, but won't
And it still bothers us (maybe a little) that you don't think a streamer blowing exactly the "wrong" direction, or the cart blowing through a cloud of dust is convincing.  It makes me *extremely* doubtful that you'd find any demonstration convincing.
outrun dust:  "but it's not popcorn!!!!"
outrun popcorn:  "but it's not a balloon!!!!"
outrun a balloon:  "but it's not smoke!!!!"
outrun smoke:  ... you get the idea.
14
Or does it just mean he thinks...
The word "thinks" is misplaced when talking about Heinz.
15
I think a bunch of trump's people came in actually believing the dumb conservative narratives about DC and the federal government being all pampered and decadent, and they assumed servants would wait on them and bureaucrats would throw money at them when they arrived.  hence all these bizarre stories about cabinet members being wasteful with public resources and acting entitled.

it's always projection with these shitheads on every level

Obama and co. must be a bunch of corrupt grifters because, hey, that's what they'd do if they were in power

it also fits well with their authoritarian hierarchy views of the world. others don't deserve this opulence, but it's only natural that they do
Similarly, they assume that the left accepts climate "alarmism" for purely political reasons, because after all their acceptance or rejection of any scientific conclusion is purely political.
16
Science / Re: Heh!
Hi Stevie!
18
Politics and Current Events / Re: Austin bombings
Of course, when the White House finally chimed in, this is what they fucking said:
Quote
The bombings in Austin did not appear to be linked to terrorism, White House spokesman Sarah Sanders said on Twitter on Tuesday.
How is indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets literally not fucking terrorism?
Maybe they're just trying to say that they don't have any information that makes it looks like a Muslim did it.
19
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
I like it.  I can half relate to that character*.  Lots of times I've gotten good work done that wasn't on my task list.  If you want to stop me from making progress on anything, just add it to the list of things I'm officially supposed to be working on.


[* I have the super ADD part, not the genius part obviously ]
20
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
This is why you dont get work done.
shut up Perseus

fake eta:  This isn't the reason; this is just a symptom
21
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
I can't help wondering whether propositions are even the right category for things to be believed.

Normally, when the propositions p and q are equivalent, you can substitute one for the other in any complex proposition that refers to them.  Clearly you can't do that when talking about belief.  Someone can believe p while failing to believe q even if p and q are equivalent:  (p↔q)∧(Bp)∧(¬Bq) is a possible state of affairs.

Moreover, the object of a person's belief may be so nonsensical that there is no corresponding proposition.  (Trinitarian theology may be an example here.)

I guess what I'm suggesting is that "belief" doesn't work on the space of propositions, but rather on the space of ... something else.  Let's call them "notions".

A notion may (or may not) correspond to a particular expression of a proposition, in which case belief in the former notion can loosely be described as belief in the latter proposition.

Now I'm not at all sure that this suggestion will really shed light on anything.  Just "thinking out loud" here.
22
the deeper I get, the more I'm convinced
That "increasingly" schtick again.
23
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
The wiki links to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6b%27s_theorem to explain why it should be true, and the theorem seems to fall into the same problem.
Specifically, to explain why it should be true that "any reflexive reasoner of type 4 is modest".  As I hinted earlier, I have even more trouble trying to grasp what doxastic phenomenon the descriptor "reflexive" is supposed to capture.
Quote
Also, it says that type 4 reasoners are modest, and implies that type 4 is pretty good ("increasing levels of rationality"), so
"modest" seems like a "good" descriptor.
Yes, I noticed that.

So (in decreasing order of probability) it seems that

(1) I'm being stupid

or

(2) Wikipedia screwed up

or

(3) The original ideas from Smullyan were put together sloppily.
24
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
I assume that the subject is intended to be clear from the context.

But yeah.  That's why I said
Presumably, if we have more than one person in view (say, X and Y), we could mark the belief operator to say which believer we're talking about.  So BXp would mean "X believes that p".
25
...except that that requires a great many abiogenesis events, and abiogenesis is notoriously difficult, so it's far more likely to have happened only once rather than the many times implied by the Orchard.