If you're among the 18% of still undecided voters...

[camilus]

Okay, it only took me the last post you made in physics to find it.

http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=30516


$$\frac{m}{v}$$ does not equal $$\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu}$$

Check the units for your self...messiah

no shit when did I say they had the same units? I was putting it in laymens terms you idiot, because the people who wanted to know didnt seem to understand whata hell you guys were saying.

and so what about the units, what I said is perfectly valid, you talking about permittivity, which had the same effect as light going through different mediums of different densities.

 

[camilus]

Or how about this one...


Mercator projections are Collignon projections as well, right?

that makes no sense whatsoever, go google homeomorphism regarding topology before you start talking shit.

 

[camilus]

Or how about this one...


Mercator projections are Collignon projections as well, right?

and manifolds while you're at it, because Mercator and Collignon projections have nothing to do with homeomorphism when talking about topology. They are homeomorphic, because any two pieces of paper are, but that has nothing to do with with fuckin map projections.

I dont want to get rude anymore, but seriously, are you slow? because if you are I apologize for insulting you.

 

[CheskiChips]

no shit when did I say they had the same units? I was putting it in laymens terms you idiot, because the people who wanted to know didnt seem to understand whata hell you guys were saying.

and so what about the units, what I said is perfectly valid, you talking about permittivity, which had the same effect as light going through different mediums of different densities.

When putting something into laymens terms, you generally try to avoid giving the wrong perceptual analysis. In fact, 'laymens terms' generally implies you're giving the correct qualitative understanding without the quantitative method. Space doesn't have density, it has properties. Properties can belong to space without space having mass, variation of those properties is determined by it's interactions with mass or in this case, differentials of potential energy in the same medium. Thus saying something that doesn't exist has density is conceptually, mathematically, and philosophically wrong. It shows a total lack of understanding of the physical model of space. Rather it appears that your mental model of space is that of a 9th grade text book.

and manifolds while you're at it, because Mercator and Collignon projections have nothing to do with homeomorphism when talking about topology. They are homeomorphic, because any two pieces of paper are, but that has nothing to do with with fuckin map projections.

I dont want to get rude anymore, but seriously, are you slow? because if you are I apologize for insulting you.

I intended to express (by comparing map projections), that each projection has specific properties maintained. The specific properties maintained accurately is the purpose of the varying projections...the same is true with comparing vector space to a manifold. In the map projections one maintains linear distances while the other maintains accurate angles (Geometrically correct).


======

I dont want to get rude anymore, but seriously, are you slow? because if you are I apologize for insulting you.

I don't want to come across too arrogant...but if you spent as much time learning as you do trying to convince others you're intelligent...you might learn something.

 

[camilus]

Thus saying something that doesn't exist has density is conceptually, mathematically, and philosophically wrong.

Theres a lot of things wrong with that statement. First your saying space doesnt exist, and that is philosophically wrong. And you could say space(vacuum) has a a desnsity of zero, so that negates that enormous pararaph of nonsense easily. density is mass over volume, while the vacuum has a volume, is has no mass so its density is zero. sorry to say this, but DUH...

I intended to express (by comparing map projections), that each projection has specific properties maintained. The specific properties maintained accurately is the purpose of the varying projections...the same is true with comparing vector space to a manifold. In the map projections one maintains linear distances while the other maintains accurate angles (Geometrically correct).

I understand that, but that has nothing to do with homeomorphism. You're talking about topology, and in that case above you are correct, but homeomorphism is a property of manifolds completly independent of anything you said above. Homeomorphism is basically, to put in laymens terms again, reshaping of manifolds while without tearing or gluing, only compressing and stretching and so on.

I don't want to come across too arrogant...but if you spent as much time learning as you do trying to convince others you're intelligent...you might learn something.

This is more of a joke than you are, and I advise you to follow your own advice.

 

[Diode-Man]

The choices are difficult.

What is the right way to do something if one isn't fully sure of the situation at hand?

Leaving Iraq high and dry without notice would be unwise though.

 

[CheskiChips]

Yeah, a mod should cespool this thread.

Camilus, you sound like recycled Wikipedia. I give up.

 

[camilus]

recycled wikipedia? LMAO yeah, lets end this, if anything take it up in the physics forum. But it's funny how you say I sound like a recycled wikipedia, you sound like you're just copying and pasting right out of wikipedia, atleast I know my shit well enough to put it in my own words.