Re: OT The Politcal Brain - Confirmation bias

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:02:25 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:09:53 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




Cliff:

I don't have much time to play today, so I'll cut your political and
other rhetoric to a minimum. You and I have no first hand knowledge of
what possible stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons there may
have been, we only have information that is filtered by various layer of
the media and so therefore is little more than speculation.

DANG !!!
So because they can find none (and nobody that knows anything no
matter how high the rewards) the place must be loaded with them?

I wouldn't read too much into the aphorism "Absence of evidence, is not
necessarily evidence of absence", since it's main use is in the form of
a guiding principle.

Go get Aristotle. QUICK !!

================================================================
From: sittingduck <you.love.sitting-duck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I should have never told cliff and gunner to go spew in the political
groups... all it did was make them realize they were there, and then
drag
this group through the cesspool.

duck <----- sorry

He might not be VERY sorry, but his assessment that political extremism
(and extremists), are dragging this group through the cesspool is
apropos and accurate.

You miss his posts, right?

You seemed to entirely miss his point in THAT post. Which was that
political extremists are dragging this group through the cesspool.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
This is testable.

And
since you're the most prolific crossposting political extremist you're
obviously the worst offender for bringing political kooks to THIS group
to use as a battlefield. Why don't you just post to those other
political groups and leave THIS one out of the crosspost list.

Lots of wingers here too <g>.

Are you unable to separate an article ABOUT political rhetoric, FROM
political rhetoric itself?

Found these "WMDs" yet?
This is testable, BB.

So it seems the answer to my question is yes.

When are you getting back from your vacation in Lintland?

So can you separate an article ABOUT political rhetoric, FROM
political rhetoric itself?

Found these "WMDs" yet?
This is testable, BB.

They were your posts, not mine <G>.
What was it? +X or +Y or + Z all over the place?
Then you got left-handed too IIRC <g>.

Well let's backtrack and see what was originally said.

=======================================================================
BB wrote:
You asked me: "Which way does Y point in your claimed XZ systems?" and
I answered: "In Gibbs Lathe when you're looking at the 2D X,Z geometry Y
would point straight up out of the screen."

Then you answered:

Cliff wrote:
"You have a problem then <G>.
Check the right-hand rule ...... LOL ...."

So obviously you didn't know which way the standard orthogonal axes
point, OR what the "right-hand" rule meant. Kind of strange for someone
that claims to have been a CAD checker. What did you check, people's
spelling?

Umm .... per RS-267-B with the spindle on the left +Z points to the right
and +X towards the operator/front for covered lathes.
Now apply the right-hand rule ... <chuckle>

=======================================================================


after claiming to know all those programming systems from the
past, or getting the G02-03 wrong when you tried to program the lathe
edge break

I was correct as stated, BB.
Check it out <VBG>.

Not according to Tom and Dan.

Little fishies.

I notice you haven't yet responded to their questions with explanations
of your code elsewhere in this thread.

Covered elsewhere a bit back IIRC.

And not
knowing P,Q,R were tertiary axes,

IIRC Secondary was .....

Secondary axes were not the issue. You were wrong when you said P,Q,R
were NOT tertiary axes.

Best that you go check the original posts.

OK, let's check what you originally said:
=======================================================================
Cliff wrote:

... but you seem to have an error in there
with your "(P,Q and R)" bits ...

BB replied:

Oh? Let's once again check your facts:

I admitted to forgetting about the oddness of having S & T (usually
otherwise used) in there too, having asked about U IIRC <g>.

Missed that post too?

or not knowing that larger dia. stock
will contact the slit edges of a collet/bushing first.

That's not much related unless you are now changing your
claim.

I'm changing absolutely nothing.

Yep. Go look at your original post <G>.
IIRC.

You might be able to
change history in your own mind but your comments that are archived in
Google aren't so easily changed. Should I bring up your original
claim/comments?

Feel free <G>.

OK, let's follow THIS one up again.

=======================================================================
BB wrote:

If the bar is larger than the ID of the guide bushing the bushing
would
probably contact the bar only at the edges of the splits.

Cliff replied:

Oops .... Geometry issues again.
Those edges would be farthest AWAY from the stock <G>.

For bars/rods/etc. you can fit in the bushing/collet <G>.
What did I also post about ID > OD?

=======================================================================

That's just one conceptual boo-boo after another. And the worst of it
is, you seem to have this ability, or disability, to forget you ever
made the error in the first place. It must be great to live in a
mentally fabricated world where you believe you've never made a
mistake. LMAO!

What did I also post about ID > OD?
And you never wondered? LOL ...


Are mass and time vector quantities?

Time clearly is and mass may be.

Nope.

Yep. See all the examples & links I posted.

============================================================

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Free" ... LOL ...

You've got something against "Free"? You mean you'd rather pay?

I even quoted a few bits too <G>.

Vector (spatial): In physics and engineering, vector most often refers
specifically to an object that has a special relationship to the spatial
coordinates/directions.

What part of "spatial" was unclear there?

No part was unclear at all. Time is NOT a spatial entity.

They were limiting their statement TO spatial-only vectors or
vector components. That's a subset.

That's one
reason why it's a scalar. Now space-time is an entirely different
entity, not to be confused with time just because it has word "time"
within it's title.

<Snort>
It has "time" in there exactly because of.
A vector, in the general case, can have many dimensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_vector_spaces


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0822053314/103-6824514-3148614?v=glance&n=283155

Examples of vectors include displacement, velocity, electric
field,
momentum, force, and acceleration.

Vectors can be contrasted with scalar quantities such as
distance,
speed, energy, time, temperature, charge, power, work, and mass, which
have magnitude, but no direction (they are invariant under coordinate
rotations).
============================================================

============================================================
http://216.239.57.104/search?q =cache:PWldB9y6tQ4J:www.its-ab
out-time....

A vector (such as velocity, acceleration, and force) has both magnitude
and direction whereas a scalar (such as mass, and time) has only
magnitude.
============================================================

============================================================
http://www.saskschools.ca/curr _content/physics30/glossary.ht
ml=======...

Scalar.
A quantity that can be described completely with a magnitude. The
magnitude is made up of both a number and a unit. Some examples are
mass, time, distance, speed, and work.
============================================================

============================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S calar

In physics a scalar is a quantity that can be described by a single
number (either dimensionless, or in terms of some physical quantity).
Scalar quantities have
magnitude, but not a direction and should thus be distinguished from
vectors.

Examples of (non-relativistic) scalar quantities include:

electric charge
distance
energy
mass
power
speed
temperature
time
volume
work
=============================================================

=============================================================
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/ physics/mechanics/vectors/intr
oduction/...

Some quantities have only size.

In the above example the time period can be completely
explained and expressed using only one number, 30 seconds. That number
represents the size of the time, and, as a quantity, all that time has
is a size.

Quantities like these, that only have size, are called
scalars.

Vectors are quantities that have a size and a direction.

When we say that a quantity has a direction, we mean a
direction much like how a direction is thought about on a compass. The
velocity of a thrown baseball, of course, is pointed or aimed in the
direction that the ball is moving. That is not how we are speaking
about direction when we say, "Time marches forward," nor when we say,
"The temperature is going up." Time nor temperature are not aimed North,
South, East, nor West, or any other compass
direction.
============================================================

I posted many links many times but you grasped none of it.

Nope. Not a one that was anywhere near relevant.

The lint grasps little, BB.

If your answer is yes, please
show a credible physics site that clearly and concisely agrees with you.

See many, many prior posts <G>.

NOW you're trying to claim that you HAVE supported your position with
credible physics sites?

Yep. Just not many from the 7th grade.

Nope, not from ANY grade.

All mostly about 7th grade stuff so far, BB.
Don't know about nuns & Catholic schools though.

If an object has 2 kg of mass and zero velocity - how much momentum
does it possess?

And that is material how?
You don't seem to grasp much of this at all, BB.

It's VERY material in supporting another of your skewed science
misconceptions where you've claimed the "Mass ALWAYS has momentum".
Which is patently untrue since momentum is reference frame dependent and
within a reference frame where the object is stationary is HAS ZERO
MOMENTUM.

Wrong yet again. It has a quite specific momentum with a relative absolute
magnitude of zero momentum units.
But absolute magnitudes are not mometums.

If an object has a quite specific momentum then you should be able to
easily answer the following question then: If an object has 2 kg of
mass and zero velocity - how much momentum does it possess? If you
can't answer it, then your rhetoric is just that... unsupported
conjecture. I await your answer of the specific momentum. LMAO!

P = 2kg *[0*x + 0*y + 0*z]m/s or similar where x, y & z are unit
vectors, BB.
That's a quite specific momentum and, per the conservation laws,
would tend to keep the mass right where it is *in that
coordinate system/reference frame*
A simple vector operation would get you to any other <g>.
As long as P is a vector (which it is).

Did the mass vanish when A, B & C became zero? LOL ...

Let's try this in shop language.
Consider your tool axis vector.
If it is orthogonal to the X-Y plane does it have no vector?

Is it moving in a certain direction? Does it have a velocity? Does it
have any momentum?

Answer the question. It's about vectors.

Was Terry correct when he said: "the only thing i can consider "wrong"
is trying to have an intelligent exchange with cliff"

Which "Terry"?

How many Terry's are currently posting.

I've not counted.

You must be missing posts if
you missed what he said, since he said it only a couple of days ago.

Must be a newbie, eh?

BTW, http://www.hep.lu.se/atlas//thesis/egede/thesis-node9.html
--
Cliff
--
Cliff
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT The Politcal Brain - Confirmation bias
    ... Cliff wrote: ... Vectors can be contrasted with scalar quantities such as ... A vector has both magnitude ... misconceptions where you've claimed the "Mass ALWAYS has momentum". ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: OT The Politcal Brain - Confirmation bias
    ... Cliff wrote: ... Scalar multiplication with the zero vector yields the zero vector: ... magnitude of zero momentum units. ... mass and zero velocity - how much momentum does it possess? ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Machinists; critical machining data
    ... momentum, even if that momentum happens to be zero. ... Cliff and I do a little dancing Minuet on certain subjects. ... not be an intrinsic property of mass - and even mass may not be an ... But NO motion = zero momentum. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass
    ... Momentum is a vector. ... > It has direction & magnitude. ... Neither mass nor c have an inherent ... > asked you to explain to me the composition of a momentum that has no ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Calculating Newtons in Joules and Joules/s
    ... Momentum and energy are separately conserved. ... If the 3 kg mass were to get all of the momentum of the ... Make it two 4 kilogram masses instead of two 3 kg masses. ... kinetic energy is conserved. ...
    (sci.physics)