Re: forced vibration question

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 09/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:23:58 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cimbp0$54u$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cijvmm$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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>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.
>
> --------------
> 1 just keep in mind that i owe you anything

I suppose you meant "nothing"?

And you are wrong here. When someones makes an assertion, he
has the obligation to support it.

> but is you ask nicely i will reply?
> take the qm example:
> the force that causes a biliding resonance is growing with thime
> why?

*sigh* That was not the point here. The point was if a growing force
is *required* for resonance.

> because
> 1 you should know that the potential forces of qm
> are actuaslly so big that no building can survive it

What on earth are you babbling about? What "potential forces of qm"???

[snip a lot of irrelevant stuff]

>>>>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?
>
> ---------------
> ask other people to think about it

Why should I? Why does my own experience not count?

> it involves the simplest geometry:
> if the amplitude becomes larger than at the beginning!!
> and the parent stands in his orriginal position

*sigh* I already told you that in my experience, the parent
does *not* remain standing in his original position.

[snip more irrelevant stuff]

>>>>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?????
>
> -----------
> your pupils (God forbid ) might see it!!

I don't have pupils in the moment.

[snip]

>>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"!
>
> no you were not responding
> you are leeching and it makes a difference.

Pointing out your errors is not "leeching".

> and btw i cant demand you to stop answering
> it was never a demand because i cant demant
> it was a request a wish.

Well, and when I said to you that you perhaps should leave the
newsgroup and actually *learn* something before coming back, it
was not even a request. It was merely a suggestion. So, again,
*who* is the thought police here?

> a reasonable personality is responding to such a request!1
> i can onlt try a nd convice you not to haunt me

A resonable personality would also first learn something before
attacking things he knows close to nothing about.

[snip]

>>>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.
>
> --------------
> no i am not too cleaver
> yet othrs are in many cases not cleaver than me
> but they dont realise that they are crankes as well

*sigh* That's exactly what I meant.

>>>so *you are lier*
>>
>>Asking a question makes me a liar?
>
> ----------
> asking questions is rather your good part
> but bestowing insulting titles and labels
> is your bad part

Pot. Kettle. Black.

>>>>*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
>
>
> nothing will do. if you dont get it.

You can refute my argument quite simply. Remember, it is an argument
about how a certain term ("external force") is *defined*, what it
*means*. One can find the meanings, the definitions of technical terms
in books - dictionaries, for starters. So, all you have to do to
convince me that *your* usage of the term "external force" is correct
is to cite a source which define the term in that way. (hint: citing
a dictionary in order to show the meaning of a word has nothing to do
with parrotting)

[snip]

>>>>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?
>
> ------------
> he common paractice is
> that you are not obliged to attack me
> if a call someone else - parrot

*sigh* Yet again: did you miss the "including me" above?

[snip]

>>>>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.
>
> --------------
> ok have we a deal ??? and you dont call me a crackpot etc !
> only me will call myself a crackpot while i feel like it.
> and not an inferiour engineer wetc etc

For the 101th time: I will only agree to a "cease fire" if you
stop calling all scientists who disagree with you "parrots".

I simply don't like arguing with a man who uses libel as his way
out of every inconvenience!

[snip]

> on one condition :
> that you will say :
> IMHO you are wrong
> ok?

No. That would imply that my opinion is not better than yours.
And that is simply not true. I have an *informed* opinion, because
I *studied* all that stuff for years, took tests and exams on it,
etc. In contrast, *your* opinion is based on a total ignorance about
the things you attack.

Bye,
Bjoern

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Is It About THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA?
    ... which contradicts what you yourself feel to be so about something, ... The term 'consider the source' is not necessarily a derogatory ... give a great more credence to the opinion or statement of someone I had ... then he blamed me for that attack. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: Many XP Problems Solved
    ... It was my opinion stated as a normal person in response to your statement. ... one of problems dissappeared and that told me it was a corrupt registry. ... "Your attack came far after that explanation. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: NSA wiretap, Friday night
    ... In my opinion, you have not written anything constructive or helpful. ... I can't see how your attack on _his_ message was at all justified. ... via the mutually agreed crappy Outlook newsreader, ... I'll make sure you have no excuse to say you don't see my response. ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: In your opinion
    ... economy. ... next attack on us and then went and cleaned their plows. ... lost a war, I'm about as right winger as they come when it comes to war. ... stand behind their opinion with their own names. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Many XP Problems Solved
    ... Shenan Stanley ... It was my opinion stated as a normal person in response to your statement. ... Your attack came far after that explanation. ... made a jump that I needed a lesson in "ethics and computer history". ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
Quantcast