Re: OT The Politcal Brain - Confirmation bias



Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:02:25 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?

Cliff:

Who ever said THAT? You or I don't KNOW to a 100% certainty whether
there were, or were not, WMD's in Iraq. So making any statements either
way would be no more than speculation. It's my SPECULATION that he
didn't have any weapons capable of reaching the U.S. It's also my
SPECULATION that he at one time had chemical weapons capable of
inflicting damage on his local enemies.



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>.

So? I thought it was supposed to be a "liberal" trait to be tolerant
of different races, creeds, sexual preferences, religions, etc.? Isn't
that correct? Your posts don't seem to be very tolerant of those who
don't share your particular ideological viewpoint of the moment. In
fact, you seem to be trying to beat others over the head with a plank
from your own personal liberal platform. Actually, it's quite likely
that your behavior probably turns other TRUE liberals off and is
perceived as giving them a bad name.



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.

Not suggesting that I don't trust your interpretation, but do you have
a copy or website that details this RS-267-B standard? And is this
standard supposed to apply to CNC lathes?

Now apply the right-hand rule ... <chuckle>

Well, your alleged "standard" doesn't seem to apply to our Haas and
Okuma lathes, since X+ points AWAY from the operator.


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.

I don't recall you explaining your code. Be a good lad and please
repost it.


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?

So you're now admitting you were wrong about P,Q,R being tertiary axes
like I said they were?




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>.

Bars/rods/etc. a few thousandths over nominal will usually easily fit
inside of bushings/collets. And just where do you think these slightly
over nominal size bars/rods/etc. will contact the bushings/collets? At
the slit edges like *I* said, or "furthest AWAY" from the slit edges
like *YOU* claimed?

What did I also post about ID > OD?

As usual you posted a lot of attempted obfuscating nonsense in an
effort to cover and misdirect attention away from your original
conceptual boo-boo. Do you really think many are fooled by now with
this common ploy of yours, Cliff ol' buddy. Should we take a survey?
LOL


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

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!


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.

Excuse me? Are you now admitting that you are unable to comprehend the
distinction between "time" in a simple duration sense, and "space-time"
in a 4 dimensional continuum of the universe sense? LMAO!
Either you DON'T know the difference, whereupon your comments on this
subject resolve into meaninglessness, OR what's even worse, you are
being intentionally deceitful just to try and win a newsgroup argument.
Neither behavior seems to be a particularly credible one.


A vector, in the general case, can have many dimensions.

Many dimensions? Including metaphysical hyperspatial dimensions? LOL

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

=====================================================
From your above link:

The most familiar vector spaces are two- and three-dimensional
Euclidean spaces.


Scalar multiplication with the zero vector yields the zero vector:

For all a â?? F, we have a 0 = 0.

Scalar multiplication by zero yields the zero vector:

For all v â?? V, we have 0 v = 0, where 0 denotes the additive
identity in F.
=======================================================

So if a bowling ball is stationary on your living room carpet (zero
vector), the momentum of that bowing ball is zero since the zero vector
times the mass = zero. Isn't that what I've been saying all along?


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

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

BTW, On an admittedly cursory glance at your sites I didn't notice any
"time" element discussed.


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.

I grasp that YOU'RE grasping as straws. LOL Otherwise you'd post
something that was clear, concise, and relevant.



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.

Well, why did you stop there, why didn't you solve it?

0*x = 0
0*y = 0
0*z = 0

0 + 0 + 0 = 0

0 * 2kg = 0

So P = 0 Or verbally, the momentum of a stationary object is ZERO!


That's a quite specific momentum

Right, it's specifically ZERO, or in other words it has NO momentum.

and, per the conservation laws,
would tend to keep the mass right where it is *in that
coordinate system/reference frame*

Momentum is NOT inertia.

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 ...

Of course not, the mass remains 2 kg in our little example here. Mass
is NOT momentum either.


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?

Yeah, he's a relative newbie. Didn't take him long the get YOUR number
though. LOL


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT The Politcal Brain - Confirmation bias
    ... Cliff wrote: ... Time clearly is and mass may be. ... A vector has both magnitude ... misconceptions where you've claimed the "Mass ALWAYS has momentum". ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: collision
    ... The trick is to transfer to the centre of momentum frame for the ... This is a frame in which the total momentum is zero. ... each mass. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 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: Machinists; critical machining data
    ... comments I make about the linear momentum of a stationary object, ... The cue ball has momentum after it's hit. ... even if that momentum happens to be zero. ... not be an intrinsic property of mass - and even mass may not be an ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Need HELP
    ... And which direction does the momentum vector, ... point when the object in question is STATIONARY and has zero velocity ... When the velocity drops to zero in the reference frame considered ... momentum if either its mass or its velocity is large. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)