Re: Bile-wacky the Janitor.


"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128542389.739409.152890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Androcles wrote:

> As of right now we are at:
> Einstein:
> ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
> tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> ,
>
> which is (with McCullough's choice of values,
> c = 5,
> v = 3,
> x' = 32,
> in FACT)
>
> ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0, 32/2+32/8)] = tau(32,0,0,32/2) , or
>
> ½[tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,20)] = tau(32,0,0,16).
>
> Bile-wacky:
>
> ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(60,0,0,20)] = tau(80,0,0,16),

| Both equations are correct - they simply involve different functions -
| both of which you denoted by the same symbol "tau".

ROFLMAO!
You do struggle to be convincing, Bile-wacky!
You are as crazy as Hammond, he's "proven" his god exists.


| Normally people don't use plugged-in numbers but general expressions
of
| the given variables so this type of purely notational confusion is
| avoided.

| (Incidentally, I had t=0 along with x=32, etc.)

x = 32, eh? ROFLMAO!!!

Let you into a little secret, Bile-wacky. I often leave little clues
like
"½[tau(0,0,0,t)+... " instead of "½[tau(0,0,0,0)+" to see anyone will
notice.

Go ahead, Bile-wacky! "Derive" the wacky transforms from
the Bile-wacky tau equations, let's have more laughs.
The fuckwits mad moortel, Phuckwit Duck, Maniacal McCullough,
McAnally the Insane and all the other incompetent silly bastards
think x' is \xi, you think it is x. Go on, give us another class act.
Prove it to them, keep working, we'll get down to the nitty-gritty of
the empty set soon. Have more fun, I know you are enjoying yourself
almost as much as I am :-)
LOL!

Androcles.

.

Quantcast