Re: forced vibration question

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 09/20/04 

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:35:12 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cijvmm$jgq$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cihbas$3lv$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message new
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Huh? In what way does it "evade" the quake?
>>>
>>>i could say here i amnot your spoon feeder but anyway:
>>>there are buildings for instance in Japan and California:
>>>in which springs are entered into their foundations
>>>and if you know something about that scince
>>>the right springs in the righ tplace is causing the building
>>>*to evade the EQ*
>>
>>Oh, you meant buildings specifically designed for resisting quakes!
>>Above it sounded as if you meant that *every* building can do
>>this "evading".
>
> ---------------
> yess
> even with no springss
> it can have substidudes to springs
> but i am not going to get into it
> the springs wwere just an example to show you how complicated
> is that issue much more than you immagined.

I notice that you *still* have not supported your assertion
that a growing force is *necessary* for resonance.

Hint: providing examples where a growing force indeed causes resonance
is not support for that.

[snip]

>>>>>you donr get even the geomerty!!
>>>>
>>>>I have seen swings quite often. There is no asymmetric motion.
>>>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>>>-------------
>>>
>>>Ghosh
>>>if the parent is standing still on one point
>>>and the amplitude becomes bigger he should withdraw bach
>>>in order to get to the 'stand still point '
>>>dont you see it??
>>>but he does not do it so
>>>the amplitude at his side is smaller that that
>>>of the opposite side
>>>AIR?
>>
>>No. In all cases I've ever seen, and done myself, the parent *does*
>>indeed "withdraw", i.e. go backwards. So the motion does *not* become
>>asymmetric.
>>
>
> ---------------
> stubborn idiot

Why I am stubborn when I tell you that what I have seen myself
contradicts your assertions?

[snip]

>>Nothing I say here in the newsgroup could ever hurt my job. So
>>I don't have a disadvantage here.
>
> i donr believe you
> it might hurt you reputation
> and you are afried of it
> it is obvious!!

How on earth would anything I say here hurt my reputation? Do you think
that my employers regularly check what I write in the newsgroups,
or what?????

>>>>>so if need imprivenet it has to start somewhere
>>>>
>>>>Yes, obviously. Hint: physicists are working on that all the time.
>>>
>>>it des not go together with 'thought police' systems !!
>>
>>Since I don't act as "thought police", that is rather irrelevant.
>>---------------
>
> lier
> you asked me to leave that ng croock

I *suggested* that to you. What on earth has that to do with
acting as "thought police"?

May I remind you that *you* *required* of me several times that
I should stop responding to your posts? *That* is an example of
acting as "thought police"!

>>>physics was always made advance by *trial and error*!!
>>
>>Roughly right. However, the crucial point you keep missing is
>>realizing that you have made an error.
>
> ----------------
> shamelss nazi croock

1840 points.

>>>depends how cleaver is the rejectors are .....
>>
>>Oh, you are more clever than all the physicists of the past
>>century, right?
>
> no i never syed that

You implied just that above.

> i sayed the opoposite that i am a crank

Depends. When it suits you, you say that you are a crank. But as
soon as the evidence contradicts you, you pretend that all the
scientists who analyzed the evidence misinterpreted it, and that
in reality your interpretation is the right one. I.e.: you act
as if you were more clever than all those people.

> so *you are lier*

Asking a question makes me a liar?

> a shame,less one therefor i call you Joseph Goebeless

1880 points.

>>*You* keep insisting that the pendulum is a *special* system*.
>>OTOH, *I* keep using the *general* definition for "external force".
>>--------------
>
> imbecil

I notice that you can't refute my argument.

[snip]

>>>no even now i offer again a cease fire
>>>all reders could notice how nmany times i suggested it
>>>and you (from your claculations) evaded it
>>>you could say simple
>>>ok i accept it
>>
>>I accept it as soon as you stop calling hundreds of thousands
>>of physicists, including me, "parrots".
>
> ----------
> disturbed imbecil
> no one nominated you as others guardian

1) For the 100th time: I need no nomination for that.
2) Did you miss the "including me" above?

> got is pomous fucker??
> you are just a too little 'pisher' to twell othrs what to do
> and how to behave with otheres than youself.
>
> got is mompous and nazi imbecil??

1920 points.

> the nazies told others what to do and what to think

1960 points.

> the bolshiviks as well you belong to that education
> and you are nothing more than the
> FERTZ inventor donrt forget it
> that is innovation ability!!
> not to the democratic world.
>
> and you are nothing more than the
> FERTZ inventor donrt forget it
> that is innovation ability!!

Man, you *really* hate me.

>>Unfortunately, you will never agree to that.
>
> of couse not
> see above little dumn dictator
> you can demand only about the relations between me and you
> nothing more !!! got it ??

Well, what about if you stop calling me a "Nazi", "Goebbles",
a "liar", a "moron", a "parrot", an "imbecil", etc.? Would be
a good start.

> seems that no way that you will get anything
> that is different from your only way
> so *** youself with Goebeless

1960 points.

> it seems that your your real motivation and *intersts*
> are to fight with me

For the 1000th time: my motivation when answering your posts
is correcting your errors. If you take that as personal attacks,
that's your problem. I call that "paranoia".

> so you will get it as you whant
>
> ps the car wheel example
> is another example of your physics cripplness of a parrot

And yet another unsupported assertion and an insult.

Do you *really* think that that is a sensible debating tactics?

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast