Answers to questions on other threds that are now locked.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I asked for a post office first. If none of you is willing to send me one, then you can wait untill I decide to figue it out.

Fine. Mail it here.

P.O. Box 9, Station O, Scarborough
Ontario, Canada M4A2M9

That's an O, not a zero.

Send it with registered mail and give me the fucking tracking number so that I can see you actually sent the damn thing.

I get the feeling that was a bad idea, Muse. At least you only posted a PO Box...

[Straha]

STEWIE! ANOTHER REPLY SENT! SEND THE NAMES OF THE PROFESSORS AND THE UNIVERSITIES IN THIS ONE PLEASE!

[18-Till-I-Die]

You know, i showed this thread to my mom yesterday, and she said something that summed up Stewie better than anyone else has. Now, just to mention this, she's a former social worker, so she has a prety good grasp on people's personalities, but not infallible so if he ever proves anything i will retact this. But until he does...

I will now post the conversation verbatum:


ME: see, this is the asshole i mentioned...he thinks he's some kind of fucking WW2 hero or some shit.

MOM: Ok lets see...uh-huh....uh, so what is he getting at?

ME: well, that's why he's a troll. He isnt getting at anything, just dicking around.

MOM: he sounds lonely.

ME: what?

MOM: well, he seems like he desperately wants these people to like him, so he lies about his real life.

ME: you think he's just some ass?

MOM: i think he's just some old man who wants attention.

It got me to thinking. I think Stewie is some sad case who thinks he's actually making freinds pulling shit like this, just some lonely old man who never lived his own life so he made one up on the internet.

I beleive The Dude's discovery of a real Stewart Davies has prety much made this clear however. It's actually quite pitiful to see someone this utterly lacking in a life that he needs to fabricate one on a web site to feel like a big man. The sad fact i'm young enough to be his son and yet i've lived a better life in 18 years than he has in, waht, 50+?

This detracts from the fact he's a cocksucker and a troll not one whit, but it, i think, gives a much needed origin to his loads of horseshit.

[Connor MacLeod]

Something just occured to me. If this guy is developing a ST game, and he is charging a price for the beta-test copies, doesnt this mean he should have acquired some sortt of licenses from Paramount to use the Trek name or something?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Where's this institute based, Stewie? Give me a physical address. I called your bluff back on page 2, and you still haven't acknowledged it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Something just occured to me. If this guy is developing a ST game, and he is charging a price for the beta-test copies, doesnt this mean he should have acquired some sortt of licenses from Paramount to use the Trek name or something?

Hey that's a thought.

Let's ask Paramount!!!

[18-Till-I-Die]

Something just occured to me. If this guy is developing a ST game, and he is charging a price for the beta-test copies, doesnt this mean he should have acquired some sortt of licenses from Paramount to use the Trek name or something?

Oh no, Connor! Where have you been!

You know he bought Paramount yesterday after winning it in a bar bet he couldnt give God a wedgie with a .45...dont you?


(this has been your daily regimen of Stewie bashing from the Strateegick Deffinse Inititave, fucking with your head since, oh, about four weeks ago. We now return you to...this funny-ass thread )

[RedImperator]

Spam makes my locking finger get itchy.

[Lord of the Farce]

I would rather joust with you than read the manual, learn to clip it to an e-mail and then send it. It's all ready to post. What is wrong with that? in the weeks since this started noone has agreed to give me an address.

So you have enough free time and effort to go on a ten days long roadtrip where you threw questions at a bunch of supposed "PhD plus guys", with absolutely no proof that they performed even the most basic ad hoc calculations rather than talking out their ass, and absolutely no proof that they actually gave you the answers that you claimed they gave (*snicker*... as if you're the first to ever try to pull that one)...

... And you expect us to believe that you can't be bothered to figure out how to work a piece of computer peripheral that a 10 year old can?

[Master of Ossus]

Stewie, what kind of scanner did you buy? Chances are, someone here has a similar scanner, if not an identical one, and can talk you through the difficult parts of the operation.

[The Dude]

What is the "critical level" and why would +4000 tones of gas in a >35,000M^3 volume not expand farther? Assuming that your mesurements are good. If the gas expanded untill it was the same dencity as air, ~1.2Kg/M3 and the asteroid was 20x16M regular ovoid, with a dencity of 1.5 the resulting cloud would be 3,351,032M3 or >185M in diamiter. Since the origional asteroid is more than 1/8th inch on my computer screen then the resulting cloud should be about 1.2 inches OD. It is less than .25" Why is that and why does it remain the same size in two consecutive frames? (If the asteroid were iron the resulting cloud would be ~325M OD.)

At ambient pressure/density, the critical temperature is many thousands of K; i,e. higher than the vapourization temerature of iron. In fact, common plasmas (like welding arcs, at ~4000K) glow only from electrically motivated incandescence, not thermal.

I hardly expect any of this to penetrate your mighty wall of ignorance, but I try.

1. The picture of the Incandesant cloud does not appear to be twice as large as the asteroid.

It is more than twice as large. Even if it wasn't , you are simply nitpicking to avoid the real issue, which is that there is no reason for the expanding gas to glow.

2. Even if it was twice as large the mass of gas in the cloud would still be >4000 or >21,445 metric tones if iron. If we use a sphere, by no means agreing wirth the picture, that makes 33,510M3 or 120Kg/M3 if it's a low dencity and 640Kg/M3 if it's an iron lump. I would assume that gas at such a dencity would expand farther and still be visable untill it was at the very least less dence than sea level air.

Then you shouldn't assume. Even if we accept your simple-minded dismissal of the radiative cooling of the gas, the gas would be invisible well before it reached sea-level air density.

3. At incandesant temperatures and the above dencities, would someone who still knows Bernulli's formulals please compute the resulting pressures.

Try the ideal gas law, fucktard.

4. At the above conditions why does the cloud not expand in the next frame?

I'll type this in caps, since you just don't seem to get it: THE EXPANDING GAS WILL COOL; THE COOLED GAS WILL NOT GLOW. In other words, the gas cloud IS expanding. However, only the hotter core (which is probably composed mostly of glowing condensed remnants anyway) glows, becuase the temperature and density are too low in the outer regions.

I understand it completely.

You have proven repeatedly that you certainly do not.

The gas at the midle of the cloud is at the lowest dencity and it glows but the part of the cloud that is at the highest dencity does not. Have I got that right?

Unsurprisingly, no. The density will have a negative outwards gradient (the outermost gas will be most dense, the "core" gas will be more dense. Moreover, the core gas will be hotter, while the outer gas is cooler. Not coincidentally (given that the special effect was produced with a pyrotechnic), this is exactly what happens in actual chemical explosives which - wait for it - vapourize the explosive.

Wrong. the outer most gas is the last to cool because it is at the highest dencity.

Back in fucktard territory. The outermost gas is unconstrained (it's surrounded by vacuum) - it will expand, and therefore decrease in density, faster than the innermost gas. This is simple common sense.

The mechanics of this are quite simple really. If the cloud is 100% at first. When it expands to 150%, ~89% of the gas will be in the outer 50%.

Dead wrong; thanks for reconfirming your algebraic uselessness. When the cloud is at 150% of its initial radius, its volume will be at 338% of its original value; thus leaving almost 30% of the gas in the original volume. Where the fuck are you getting this idiotic notion that the gas almost totally evacuates the original space?

I have never maintained that the dencity and temperature were constant in any post. I have always said that they are changing and that we should see evidence of that change. We do not. I recomend reading Richard Rhodes books on the Atomic bomb to get a handle on this.

Fuck you, moron. Try starting with simple fluid dynamics and grade-school maths. You keep bleating that we don't see evidence of decreasing temperature and density, despite the fact that I have instructed you several times that decreasing density and temperature will render the gas transparent! Are you really this fucking dumb, or is it an act?!?

EXACTLY! That is what I have been saying all along. Read all of my posts if you dought this.

Sorry, nice try Stewie. YOU said that every explosion in space would look like a ring. You deserve to be mocked for such inanity.

Once again, for those who missed this. As the cloud expands, the vast majority of the gas is at the leading edge of the sphere.

Wrong. This is completely backwards. Hydrostatic pressures are not directional by definition; even if there was a reason for even a temporary concentration of mass at the outer edge (which there isn't), it would quickly be corrected by any resulting pressure gradient.

The volume inside is largely empty!

Would you quit repeating this crap like it was a mantra? Not only is it wrong, but it doesn;t help you. Even if this was the case, the density will still drop with time at any given point in the cloud.

You are absolutely wrong again! Your math skills are obviously faulty and your knowledge of the dynamics of explosions is just as faulty. Go ask a math teacher and any physics profesor.
.

Oops; I accidentally squared when I should have cubed. You shouldn't have crowed about it though, becuase now I am forced to point out that my answer was off by a factor of 2, whereas yours was off by over an order of magnitude. Even when I fuck up, you still manage to do worse.

Really? Why don't you ask Mike about your calculations?

Fine. Mike, if you have any issues with my calcs, please PM me.

Wrong again. No one has posted a valid rebuttal! Not a single person on this board has addressed my points.

Bald-faced lie. You think you'd get better at it with practice, but, hey, you're not that smart. I have addressed and demolished every one of your so-called points; most of them multiple times. Mike did so as well.

I would have posted proofs of my claims if anyone there had given me a post office address, weeks ago. I'm an old dog and do not do new tricks.

Riiiight. It's everyone's fault but yours that you can't back your inane bullshit up. If you're too stupid to operate a dead-simple device like a scanner (which I have seen uneducated eighty-year olds do with my own eyes), then it may be time to admit you are out of your depth here.

1. A Rocket powered missile is fired in frame one. You can see the trailing exhaust plume but not the missile it self near the bow of the ship. The missile is leading the visable plume by some distance. It, the missile, is to small for the lens-camera system to resolve it.

Bwahahahahahaha..... not off to a good start. It is a beam weapon. Strike one.

2. It impacts in frame two. and either dust is dislodged from the surface by the impacts shockwave or it is gas from the conventional explosive charge that together with the kinetic energy of the missile it self shatters the asteroid.

Your theory has fallen down again, since the damage begins before this "missile" of yours even gets close to the asteroid. Strike two.

3. In frame 3, the cloud expands very little and changes shape somewhat. Like most conventional explosions in non-homoginious matierial.

You are accidentally partially correct here. Unfortunately, you are unaware of the fact that conventional explosions throw off most of their mass in the form on non-glowing gas. In fact, most of the glow from conventional explosives comes from glowing solid smoke particles; the gases themselves never get hot enough to glow. Strike three.

4. The gas dissipates and is replaced by the dust and fragmentary remnants of the asteroid. The gas can dissipate in between frames because there is so little of it. ( much less than 100 kilos, in my oppinion.)

4A. Because of the resolution limets of the film-camera system and poor light from the distant star, larger chunks are not visible as they move away from the detonation point. If they were closer to the star and had more light the ship would certainly look much brighter. ( look at space photos from LEO.)

Funny, you are not the first moron to claim that if the particles are small enough, they will disappear. This may appear to reasonable to folks as dumb as yourself; unfortunately for you, if a roughly equal solid mass is still there, it will still reflect light in proporation to the total sectional sufrace area (which just so happens to have gone UP dramatically). Fragmentation does not reduce visibility; quite the opposite is true.

So, if there is only 100kg of gas, where the fuck are the many thousands of tons of solids? Have they suddenly become tottaly non-reflective to the same light that was illuminating the asteroid? You can't account for the mass. This one is a doozy; you manage to fail conservation of mass. Strike four.

5-7. The cloud of dust and rock disperces slowly untill it is no longer large and thick enough to show up on the camera's film. If you had ever seen a quary blast in an open pit mine, were they use just enough explosive to shatter and dislodge the rock, you would know what I meen and understand the "slow motion" nature of the blast as seen on film.
The fading away effect is easily explained by the fact that dust does not expand like an un-confined gas, but only as from the origional inertia imparted by the explosive.

The dust SETTLES you fucking retard!!! I realize you have problems understanding the differences between atmosphere and space, but this is ridiculous. When you detonate high explosives in rock, you get a plume of fines. Because their frontal surface area is very high in proportion to their momentum, they quickly brake in the surrounding atmosphere and succumb to gravity. Long story short, that was a fucking awful analogy, and one which actually hurts your argument. The fact that the fines are ever visible at all is absolute proof that the particle size is not an issue; di you expect people to believe that the particles' size spontaneously DECREASES while they are in mid-air, rendering them invisible. Jesus Christ.

It explains everything and has no glairing defects.

Correction: it explains nothing and consists almost exclusively of defects. You miscast an energy-beam weapon as a self-powered missile. You can;t account for the fact that the asteroid is heavily damaged before it is visibly struck. You have accidentally drawn attention to the similarity of this event to a chemical explosion IN WHICH THE CONSTITUENTS ARE VAPOURIZED. You have laughably tried t pretend that thousands of tons of rock will become invisible if you break it into small pieces. You can't account for the solid mass that you claim remains after the impact.

What you have tried to pass off as a theory is nothing but an incredible litany of analytical incompetence. Frankly, your monumental ignorance is wearying, and if you insist on repreating your nonsensical claims without any additional supporting evidence, I will simply snip them from your posts from now on.

[Straha]

I would rather joust with you than read the manual, learn to clip it to an e-mail and then send it. It's all ready to post. What is wrong with that? in the weeks since this started noone has agreed to give me an address.

So you have enough free time and effort to go on a ten days long roadtrip where you threw questions at a bunch of supposed "PhD plus guys", with absolutely no proof that they performed even the most basic ad hoc calculations rather than talking out their ass, and absolutely no proof that they actually gave you the answers that you claimed they gave (*snicker*... as if you're the first to ever try to pull that one)...

To be fair he seemed genuinely interested in dealing with me via E-mail. Now if he E-mails me the names, I will tell you if he has, and then if they (the PhD+ guys) verify his visit. If not, I'll also be the first person to tell you, or if he doesn't even tell me their names, I'll also tell you.

[Ghost Rider]

I did not lie. I did answer the questions, read the post. How I got paid varies and I told you all of the details. I did work for them or with them on an industry team in forign countries.

Read the post before you say that I ducked the question.

I asked for 1099 or W-2.

You have never answered that, you just implied PAST employment....and evaded the question poorly so. Daycare providers can answer this one in a heartbeat.

So the question still stands W-2 or 1099.

And well I know which one you are being paid...and why you lied before...but let's see if you can answer a question with only two answers...it's like yes or no.

And also I asked LLC, Sole Propietary, or Corporation.

You've answered neither.

So please stopping looking on IRS.gov and grabbing rules that don't apply to you, and answer the easy question.

[CRUCIBLE]

Oops, as i said i didnt followed this whole conversation over all threads...

But with this new information to me, it is indeed a foolish chain of questions i asked. I have to apologize.

Because his claim is indeed utter BS then.

Stewart. I had my initial Sniper <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=tr ... raining</a> about 2 years ago. That means i am kind of new to this <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=job&v=55">job</a> (especially as i stay in my normal role and can do only the refresh trainings every 6 moths).

But didnt it came to your mind as you claimed this, that such nonsense will miscredit every following word you type instead of confirming it? Among other claims indeed, but i am not qualified to say anything about them.

Again, i am sorry to type that question without knowing all facts/threads. I asumed he was indeed talking about his feats with a RIFLE(!) and not a pistol. That just didnt came to my mind.

I never had sniper <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=tr ... raining</a> in the service. I knew how to shoot before going in. As a sniper grad, you should be able to do things that "normal" <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=pe ... >people</a> think are quite extraordinary. I find the hardest thing to do to get hits at long range is find the range. Next is "dopeing" the wind, either of wich will cause you to miss by many yards at ranges much past 600M. What do you think? Did you use the M-40 or M-21 in your class? I personaly prefered the M-21. The ART scope, fast second shots at other targets and supressor made it many times better than the M-40 in the real world. (+90% of targets are seen under 400M)

You shot with the M-40 during your military career? That would mean that you were with the Marine Corps. Because afaik only Marines got assigned to a M-40. I have to apologize if you stated that you were with the Marines, i still havent read through everything you posted...

Btw, even a Police marksman would favour to drop dead before he would even touch a supressed marksman/sniper rifle (accuracy goes out the window, i know what i speak about (PSG-1S)).

P.S. Did you just stated that any M-16 can be more precise than any PSG-1 at 300m ? *cough* PSG-1 lives not up to sniper standards but it is still a precision rifle.

[CRUCIBLE]

I am from Germany, thus doing my duty in the German Army.

Btw, too bad that you have no HK weapons at all. You just could have told me the serial number of it, and i had looked it up.

sorry, for spelling

[Tribun]

I am from Germany, thus doing my duty in the German Army.

Btw, too bad that you have no HK weapons at all. You just could have told me the serial number of it, and i had looked it up.

sorry, for spelling

Better not mention you spelling, or Stewie will accuse you of being an idiot, like he did to me.

[Uraniun235]

I sent the following email to Stewart, as he requested.

Since you require a postal address, you may send all pictures you wish hosted to:

William Christy
1977 McNary Central
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331

-Bill
AKA Uraniun235

Of course you're all free to send love and sunshine my way as well. (Preferably love, in the form of cute, intelligent, and horny young women.)

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

My challenge to Stupid At SDI still stands.

I want large pictures of all your weapons, labeled accurately and with NO SPELLING ERRORS!

Send to dannydalecox at cox dot net. And no, Snail Mail is NOT an option.

[consequences]

Let me get this straight, Stewart, you waste thousands of characters explaining what types of weapons you own, yet cannot spend the time to figure out how to use a scanner and send us digital images of your degrees. This is bordering on the absurd.

I never said that I would up load my certs. They are in the basment stored in boxes for more than since '81 and I am not willing to waist my time looking for them.

Fuck off, troll. No dumbass who actually went to the trouble of getting a degree in the first place runs off and loses it.

Umm, actually, I sadly have to disagree. I have no idea where my high-school diploma is. x(infinity) However, seeing as I lost it at age 17, during an especially irresponsible period of my life, this just further demonstrates Stewart's immaturity, as only someone who doesn't give a fuck would lose track in the first place.

[Howedar]

High school diplomas don't really count for shit, frankly. They're worth somewhat more than the paper they're printed on.

There's a huge difference between losing a high school diploma (which is still pretty dumb, no offense) and losing a college diploma.

[muse]

Well Stewart, I'm still waiting for your documents.

I'm looking for copies of the following:

Your driver's license (you may black out the number)
Registration for all your firearms
Tax forms for your company
Names & universities for all those PhD types you had lunch with
Proof of your armed forces service
Your College & University diplomas
Documents to back up your other 1001 claims

In case you can't see the mailing address, here it is again.

Chris M.
P.O. Box 9, Station O, Scarborough
Ontario, Canada M4A2M9

That's an O, not a zero.

Send it with registered mail and give me the fucking tracking number so that I can see you actually sent the damn thing. You have until Friday to get everything in the mail and send the tracking number for your package.

[consequences]

High school diplomas don't really count for shit, frankly. They're worth somewhat more than the paper they're printed on.

There's a huge difference between losing a high school diploma (which is still pretty dumb, no offense) and losing a college diploma.

Hey, I didn't have to say anything, did I?

[Master of Ossus]

Umm, actually, I sadly have to disagree. I have no idea where my high-school diploma is.

I don't have any idea where my high-school diploma is, either. I think my parents have it.

x(infinity) However, seeing as I lost it at age 17, during an especially irresponsible period of my life, this just further demonstrates Stewart's immaturity, as only someone who doesn't give a fuck would lose track in the first place.

Realistically, I was talking about college and university degrees that people generally spend tens of thousands of dollars to earn, and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars (even more when taking into account lost wages they could have earned working instead of going to grad school, etc.), and spend literally tens of thousands of hours of their lives researching. Can you name anyone who actually "lost" their PhD? Is there anyone here who stores their MBA (or equivalent) in their basement, next to the water heater?

Every legal office I have ever walked into displays degrees and other awards and certificates that the lawyer (lawyers) have earned in various fields. The stereotypical psychiatrist who has an entire wall of his office dedicated to hanging diplomas/awards in pretty little frames is a stereotype for a very good reason: professionals in such fields often do these things. Even some of the VERY well-known architects that I have met and had dealings with over my life almost ALWAYS display their college degrees, along with their university diplomas and various other awards. Even the fucking barbers I visit display degrees from various cosmetic schools they have attended at their workstations.

Can I see someone losing a HS degree? Of course. Stewart, however, is talking about storing a college/uni degrees in his BASEMENT! Given his allegedly extensive knowledge of "PhD plus" people, one would think he would have a better grasp of the professional mindset than that.

Not to beat on a dead horse, here, but how would you feel if you went up to your doctor/dentist and asked them where their medical degree is and they told you it was in their basement and that they didn't want to bother to look for it? There's a reason why almost all professionals keep their credentials close at hand.

[Darth Wong]

Umm, actually, I sadly have to disagree. I have no idea where my high-school diploma is.

I don't have any idea where my high-school diploma is, either. I think my parents have it.

My high-school diploma might have been thrown in the garbage years ago for all I know or care. Who cares about high school diplomas? I can see hanging onto if it it's all you have, but when you have a university degree there's no point keeping the high school diploma around. A university grad typically doesn't even bother mentioning his high school education on his resume at all.

Every legal office I have ever walked into displays degrees and other awards and certificates that the lawyer (lawyers) have earned in various fields. The stereotypical psychiatrist who has an entire wall of his office dedicated to hanging diplomas/awards in pretty little frames is a stereotype for a very good reason: professionals in such fields often do these things. Even some of the VERY well-known architects that I have met and had dealings with over my life almost ALWAYS display their college degrees, along with their university diplomas and various other awards. Even the fucking barbers I visit display degrees from various cosmetic schools they have attended at their workstations.

In fact, it may be noteworthy to point out that according to PEO guidelines, a practising engineer is expected to display his P.Eng certification prominently. That way, failure to readily produce said certification on the part of a self-proclaimed engineer is an instant cause for suspicion of fraud.

[consequences]

Let me make this clear, I have no college degree, just a year's worth of classes. My parents also went to the trouble of sending me to a private school, making this more signifigant. On a relative scale, this matters, especially if for whatever job-related reason I am required to produce it.

However, as no one is expecting me to conduct brain-surgery or build nuclear defense systems, this matters less to society as a whole. Even so, I'm still more than slightly ashamed of my stupidity in this matter.