Proof that many of you are morons [Archive]

BeholdTheTruth

13th January 2003, 04:52 AM

To all of you who were so adamant that I was stupid and/or foolish to believe that the changing directions of a moving point could be useful in studying the physics of moving bodies like the earth moving in an elliptical orbit around the sun...

I point you who are blinded instead of enlightened by what you know to...

http://www.schulphysik.de/strutz/hodo.pdf and

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Hamilton/Hodograph/

JC was only partially right. The truth set some people free. The rest shut their eyes even tighter. The reason is sad but plain to see; most well educated folks would rather be right than righter.

Crossbow

13th January 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Yalel on January 6, 2003
I want to wish all of you here a healthy and prosperous New Year. And I hope that those of you who are going to the Florida meeting have a great time.

As for my New Year's present:

I am not going to have time to play with you here anymore because I'm now after bigger game in a biggger game.

...

MRC_Hans

13th January 2003, 05:50 AM

Yalel, watch your tone!

Nobody, said you were wrong in expressing planetary movements as vectors, only that it was uninteresting. Its not actually new, as you must have noticed (Sir William Rowan Hamilton (1805-1865) ).

What would be new would be if you were to make a point for a change. Ah, but I know: We must seek our own revelation, otherwise we wont appreciate it right.

Hans :rolleyes:

Flatworm

13th January 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Yalel
To all of you who were so adamant that I was stupid and/or foolish to believe that the changing directions of a moving point could be useful in studying the physics of moving bodies like the earth moving in an elliptical orbit around the sun...

This is a straw man- no one claimed that describing the change in a particle's direction was useless to the question of planetary motion. The simple fact is that better mathematical tools already exist. Your speech about 'x-ness','y-ness', and "Rightful giving" is useless, especially in light of the existence of vector calculus.

http://www.schulphysik.de/strutz/hodo.pdf and

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Hamilton/Hodograph/

The links don't work.

hgc

13th January 2003, 11:48 AM

Yale,

You're still my favorite poster. Don't leave just because no one understands the significance of your discoveries. And don't go over to R&P either. People over there aren't qualified to examine your claims properly.

Zombified

13th January 2003, 08:46 PM

Yalel, I hope after reading the articles you linked you see my point about the usefulness and appropriateness of mathematical language for describing orbital motion.
And don't go over to R&P either. People over there aren't qualified to examine your claims properly.
Indeed. A wretched hive of scum and villainy.

BeholdTheTruth

15th January 2003, 04:46 AM

hgc
Critical Thinker

Registered: Jun 2002
Location:
Posts: 312
Yale,

You're still my favorite poster. Don't leave just because no one understands the significance of your discoveries. And don't go over to R&P either. People over there aren't qualified to examine your claims properly.

And you are my favorite responder.

So just for you...

[url]http://www.moshplant.com/direct-or/bezier

[url]http://www.moshplant.com/direct-or/bezier/math.html

http://xocxoc.home.att.net/math/bezier.htm

HGC, notice the "going from" the origin endpoint aspect and the "coming towards" destination endpoint aspect of Bezier's solution space, and the absence of references to vectors (though obviously this problem space can also be seen from a vector solution space point of view.)

BTW, it is interesting to note that Pixy has not responded. Though not too surprising. Chicken-hearted pig-heads are a dimea dozen around here.

Starshark

15th January 2003, 05:02 AM

BTW, it is interesting to note that Pixy has not responded. Though not too surprising. Chicken-hearted pig-heads are a dimea dozen around here.

Either that, or Pixy is just as bored with you as everyone else is. Which is it, I wonder?

PixyMisa

15th January 2003, 05:49 AM

Bored now.

Yalel, you are still a doctrinaire monkeyphobe.

hgc

15th January 2003, 06:31 AM

Hey Yale,

Thanks for the broken links. Every time I get a browser Error 404 I become orthoganally ... um ... er ... well, you know what I mean.

MRC_Hans

15th January 2003, 06:46 AM

You mean that seing the dos and donots, cans and cannots, hopes and hopes nots of an error 404, but not a correct 404, and not en error less than 404, and not an error more than 404, you are going away from the x-ness of a successfull browser find and coming towards the y-ness of a browser error, espcially the z-ness of an error 404. Dont you feel that the x-ness of an error 404 can be related to -1 in the same way, but not different from the y-ness of a browser success can be related to the dos, donots, musts and mustnots of a broken link, which is .... ...... .... .. .... ... ... .... ... .. .. ... .... ....... ........... . ...... ....... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... .......

Hans

Akots

15th January 2003, 07:32 AM

Actually, I already know I'm a moron. I probably threw off your Moron detector.

Frostbite

15th January 2003, 07:51 AM

I'm not a mormon.

DrMatt

15th January 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
You mean that seing the dos and donots,

Mmmm! Donuts!

Beleth

15th January 2003, 03:14 PM

Aardvark_DK

17th January 2003, 03:57 PM

Yalel, I apologise for thinking that you weren't that stupid after all. You are that stupid after all.

Or at the very least you are moving towards stupid which is a motion away from clever... etc.

BeholdTheTruth

17th January 2003, 04:51 PM

There are none so blind as those who will not see. :rolleyes:

http://theometry.org is obviously only for a tiny sub-set of the people on this forum. The rest of you can go soak your heads in vats of chicken-fat.

PS HGC, sorry you were not at my God's Eye View of the Physics and Mathematics of Change talk on the overlap of religion and science at the First Congregational Church of Closter NJ this past Wed. night. The pastor (who is also a programmer) summarized it this way: Before the Enlightenment, God and Science and Mathematics were considered by scientists and mathematicians like Galileo and Kepler and Newton to be wholly one. But since the Enlightenment, God has been more and more taken out of the equation. Yale is trying to put God back into the equation.

His congregants even solved the "going away from going away from x,etc." puzzle in under ten minutes -- which as I remember only one of you did and he took much much longer. So it only goes to show that most of you really are morons. ;)

Jim_MDP

17th January 2003, 06:24 PM

No Yale, ten minutes sounds about right.

It's just that you were pushing the math angle red herring at that time which had everyone running in circles .

Hey, I can write double entendres just like Yale. :p

hgc

17th January 2003, 06:48 PM

Yale,

Sorry I missed it. Sounds like Pastor Programmer is swell guy too.

You do realize that I'm in agreement, in the substance of the argument, with those you call moron? I realize you're frustrated, but might I suggest that name calling hurts your cause. You are redeemed from the stain of faulty logic by your good intentions, and you must realize that your detractors here are not dopes.

- h

BeholdTheTruth

18th January 2003, 02:44 AM

A big moron and a little moron were on the edge of a cliff. The big moron fell off. Why didn't the little moron fall off?

Answer: Because he was a little moron.

(And for those of you morons who did not get that... "more on".)

Which leads me to my point...

There are visual puns in holy scripture and verbal puns in holy scripture across the spectrum of ancient religions. And these puns tend to be missed by both those following those religions and those who believe that there is no possible value in any religion.

My lecture (which is based on what can be found at http://theometry.org ) plainly shows that a "Jacob's Ladder" with angles/angels and a Rod & Staff in the "valley of a shadow"
can plainly be seen by those willing to see them, and cannot be seen by those unwilling to see them.

To anyone who thinks I am frustrated by those who cannot see the JL and R&S, please disabuse your yourself (note I said dis-abuse yourself :-) of that erroneous belief. Hodographs and Bezier curves, etc. masked as religious figures of speech may or may not be what the ancient revealers intended to reveal, but I for one believe that if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays eggs like a duck, anyone who without serious and lengthy research and thought insists that it cannot possibly be a duck is being pig-headed.

BeholdTheTruth

18th January 2003, 02:46 AM

And to you, Jim: It took me a while, but I finally got it. :)

Regards, Yale

Aardvark_DK

18th January 2003, 03:00 AM

The thing is, Yalel: You are so frightfully clever that anything you say just go completely over our heads. That's just a curse you're going to have to live with. Find comfort in the fact that we all want to be just like you when we grow up.

Please excuse me now, my mom says dinner is ready.

BeholdTheTruth

19th January 2003, 05:20 AM

Aard,

Cleverness has nothing to do with it. It's just a matter of being duck-headed or pig-headed.

BTW, for all you duck-heads out there: the hodograph material is well decribed in Goodstein and Goodstein's book Feynman's Lost Lecture -- should any of your ducks be interested in seeing the physics of the earth in an elliptical orbit from a non infinitesimal calculus point of view. Plus I have added some animations about hodographs at the botom of http://theometry.org/envelope.htm .

Aardvark_DK

19th January 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Yalel
Cleverness has nothing to do with it. It's just a matter of being duck-headed or pig-headed.
See, this is exactly what I mean.

Thus spake the earth-pig.

BeholdTheTruth

19th January 2003, 06:49 AM

Spoken like a duck-head! Glad to see your pig and your duck are getting more in tune.

Enjoy the java animations per hodographs. Regards, yale

shemp

19th January 2003, 06:51 AM

"Yer a looney!"

BeholdTheTruth

19th January 2003, 12:47 PM

And you're a light-weight.

neutrino_cannon

19th January 2003, 04:21 PM

moron eh?

Isn't that some sort of sub-atomic particle?

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 05:11 PM

Probably a variety of bozon.

Aardvark_DK

20th January 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by shemp
"Yer a looney!"
He has a pet halibut?

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
He has a pet halibut?
Named Eric.

BobM

20th January 2003, 08:53 AM

You know what bugs me about this, Yalel?

You were told here months ago that your ideas weren't novel. That they had been discovered a long time ago. If I recall correctly people specifically mentioned Feynman. You were told you were re-inventing known methods.

Instead of coming back and saying 'hey look, you guys were right' you come and say 'hey you guys are morons, look what I found.' When people had been trying to point you to this very work.

Is that duck-headed or pig-headed behaviour, Yalel?

BeholdTheTruth

24th January 2003, 06:52 PM

BobM
Critical Thinker

Registered: Mar 2002
Location: MI, USA
Posts: 299
You know what bugs me about this, Yalel?

You were told here months ago that your ideas weren't novel. That they had been discovered a long time ago. If I recall correctly people specifically mentioned Feynman. You were told you were re-inventing known methods.

Instead of coming back and saying 'hey look, you guys were right' you come and say 'hey you guys are morons, look what I found.' When people had been trying to point you to this very work.

Is that duck-headed or pig-headed behaviour, Yalel?

What ducks me about all this is that I get responses that say my ideas are utter nonsense and I get responses that say that those same ideas are just reinvented scientific and mathematical discoveries. And sometimes I get those two opposing responses from the same people! So maybe moron is not an accurate term for me to be using? Perhaps I should be calling many of you noroms since you are the opposite of morons? ;)

In any case I do hope some of you are enjoying learning about hodographs and bezier curves, etc. as per the geometry of theometry as found near the end of http://theometry.org .

BTW: Jim, I think that ten minutes is giving too many here too much credit. More like a hundred years!

BobM

27th January 2003, 10:48 AM

And sometimes I get those two opposing responses from the same people! So maybe moron is not an accurate term for me to be using? Perhaps I should be calling many of you noroms since you are the opposite of morons?Actually, I think hypocrite is the correct word for that.

BeholdTheTruth

27th January 2003, 11:32 AM

I see what you mean. But I don't think so. Most of the people here are funny and smart and in their own ways true blue even when they are making off color remarks. I think it's got something to do with the cognitive way self-righteous denial works in the human psyche.

Flatworm

27th January 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Yalel

What ducks me about all this is that I get responses that say my ideas are utter nonsense and I get responses that say that those same ideas are just reinvented scientific and mathematical discoveries. And sometimes I get those two opposing responses from the same people! So maybe moron is not an accurate term for me to be using? Perhaps I should be calling many of you noroms since you are the opposite of morons? ;)

The two are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to take banal ideas (Such as "Stuff changes, which changes other stuff") and utterly fail to communicate it in any meaningful way. Once the reader has successfully deciphered all your gobbledygook, he realizes you have nothing inventive to contribute.

BeholdTheTruth

27th January 2003, 11:53 AM

Someone saying that a statement is "meaningless" is a data point. Then saying that upon reflection it is "obvious" is a second data point. To ask what causes people to first insist that something is meaningless and then what causes them later to insist it is obvious is a two-part study in cognitive processing: 1) what causes people to initially not see things that are there, and then 2) once seen, to subsequently deny that they didn't always see them?