bochs is booting w95. not psp.

if device does not have hardware T&L then it will not run. if it has software or emulated T&L it will not run. it will only crawl.

clean your psu fan and make sure it's clean too. remember to be careful.

they are not attacks. his "views" are those of an ignorant, he is incompetent with basic tools of knowledge and if 10 pages of nonsense is not enough for you to call it as such, then i'm afraid i have to say that you can't tell the difference yourself. when you smell a shit, you say "this smells like shit". if you smell a rose, you say "this smells like a rose". if me calling the stench by its name, is "an attack", then fine... call it that way. but since you accept that what he says is nonsense, what problem do you have if i call it as such? or do you actually think he's on to something? go on, i'd like to hear what you think about what he says. if you can't follow it, however, i will have to ask you to step off this discussion and refrain from judging my comments.

Quote from The Very End :

My guess is that Lerts is laughing his ass off when reading this utterly silly attacks on him for something he most likely writes out of pure fun.

Man, this forum has sinked down to a low level lately.

so he's a troll, not an idiot?
silly attacks? they are... attacks? asking him to prove his nonsensical ideas... is attack?

yeah, whatever

me calling anyone anything, isn't an indication that my arguments are wrong or correct. they might be violation of the forum's rules, but only that.

you got anything else to say, except "omg your said a mean word! your wrogn!" ? i'd love to here it

tristan, it is not worth it, for you, to soil your hands in this thread...

"your the idiot", heh? i ain't the one spouting pseudoscientific garbage and that is not only my opinion, if you care to follow the thread a bit. from what i've seen though, you must not be too bright yourself either, dear TVE. you said you couldn't follow his thoughts... you very well could have tested his "solution" to the system of equations! if you're older than 16 you certainly must, unless you're a retard. really. older than 16 and can't substitute x and y in one mathematic formula? you're not in a position to determine who is the idiot here. harsh? maybe.

if he doesn't solve the problem i asked him to, he isn't worth shit. if he is such a ****ing great engineer as he says, that he can challenge the highest held tennets of human knowledge, he certainly can solve a basic mechanics problem.

but i guess he can't, since he can't even solve a very simple 2 variable system of equations (without the help of a computer anyway... )

his screenshot for the tyre race shows nothing. he still doesn't understand (nor you, it seems, otherwise you wouldn't say this competely off-course "your the idiot".) that when you want to see how a variable affects a phenomenon you change only that one and keep all the others the same . the larger tyre not only has greater moment of inertia but it also has greater mass and greater radius... if you remember the race with the ball the disc and... the other thing, they had same mass same radius... the only different thing was their moment of inertia.


and you are making the terrible, terrible mistake of mixing science with religion... 1+1=2 isn't "belief" or "opinion". if you can't understand that you're a retard. is it that hard to swallow? can't you see the difference between this and "god exists" ? can't you see the difference between knowledge and belief? or do you "believe" they are the same? that somehow the "belief" that "1+1=2" is subjective? ha

Last edited by george_tsiros, Wed 27 Aug 2008, 10:24.

you're just an idiot.

honestly

Quote from lerts :

yet i still say both small and big ball according to phisics fall at same rate

they don't fall, they roll. same mass, different moment of inertia, the one with smaller moment of inertia goes faster. the experiment with the ball, ring and disc shows this. so between different balls, same mass, different moment of inertia, the smaller sized one will go faster down the slope. it won't slide. if it did slide and not roll, then all would go the same, because at that case, only mass matters. when objects of same mass roll, moment of inertia matters.

Quote from lerts :

i proved it with 3 serious mainstream links and mathematically

you didn't prove nothing. you gave pointers.

if you want, solve the easy problem that i asked.

calculate the linear acceleration α of a sphere, with mass m, radius r and moment of inertia I, that is rolling down a ramp that is at angle φ with the horizontal.

Quote from lerts :

you proved you cant even tell a ball from a ring or a disc

that's preposterus. of course i know the difference. you didn't notice why i pasted that particular link. when you want to analyse something you change only one variable. i keep size and mass the same and change only the moment of inertia so we can see how that particular variable (and only that) changes the phenomenon.

Quote from lerts :

forget 5th axiom i was wrong and prove the small ball falls 1st, i did it with 3 links and a demonstration

i've seen it in experiments that between spheres of same size and mass, the one with different moment of inertia (that is, different distribution of each one's mass). the one with smaller moment of inertia goes faster. between spheres of same mass and moment of inertia, the larger one goes faster.

am i supposed to be looking at a specific post?

i was expecting a specific post or thread... i am somehow disappointed, android

i want to see just how detached from reality he is.

jesus ****ing christ is this guy for real? is he doing drugs?

you are trying to prove conservation of energy is false.

your "experiments" have been done by others a zillion times in a billion different areas of science both microscopic and macroscopic. the silly analysis you have been doing is just false. i don't have to explain details. just use a ****ing yoyo and measure initial and final state.

also, you said

Quote :

paralel lines cut in euclidean geometry, it broke a 24 centry axiom, thats why geometry splitted from maths

. you wrote something, but it is not a proof of this theory. the theory still holds perfectly.

Quote :

supposing an equal final speed of 1 m/s for both:

yeah. "supposing" too much here. you don't know the final velocity of either ball.

since you're so good that you can actually challenge conservation of energy analyse this: (this is an example of how you explain things)

A (not necessarily solid) sphere of mass M and moment of inertia I goes (rotating) down a slope of angle φ in earths field of gravity g. The sphere does not slide

calculate α(t) where α is the linear acceleration of the ball using the quantities named.

jesus christ and newton's apple. you're the most delusional person i've ever met, online or otherwise.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tcs93mPn91E

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7mxV6f5nuJY

also you have to prove that parallels in euclidean geometry, in fact, intersect. (do keep in mind that the definition of parallel lines is "lines that do not intersect". if you actually somehow "prove" it, it means that nothing is true or false and everything is true and false, by means of destroying the meaning of the word "definition". you are actually arguing that, somehow, 1=2 )

no matter what you say about your father your mother or your entire family tree will give you credit for anything. my father is a chemical engineer and my mother has studied political sciences, so what?

from what we have seen since now is someone who has studied 7 years about "inertial thrust" yet hasn't even gotten to grasp with basic ideas like conservation of quantities. you are arguing that if i put 2 apples in an empty basket, i somehow can get 3 apples from that basket. you can argue that this is some kind of "bias" or some kind of "bad teaching" but in the end of the day, you have a basket with 2 apples till they ****ing rot. not 3. 2.

you still don't understand that for balls of same weight, the acceleration while going down an incline is determined by moment of inertia of each ball, without taking air resistance into consideration.

also, i am expecting the proof of the 4th axiom's falseness.

prove it.

Quote from lerts :

in my opinion the same that history is taught with bias, happens the same with all the rest of the subjects

history is not a hard science. so the whole opinion/argument falls apart. you can use science to study history but history itself is not. bias in physics won't help you since you can carry out any experiment.

it's like saying "oh you say 2+2=4 because you are biased! 2000 years knowledge and it is wrong!"

some things just are. trying to argue them is just ****ing moronic.

Quote from lerts :

we are taught in order to make us think certain way, for example magic doesnt exist but all tribes have a chaman who goes to the magic world

the shaman who goes to the magic world? utter nonsense and completely irrelevant.

Quote from lerts :

why should we believe more thousand of years of science than millions of years of tribal experience that includes magic, we are made to go antinature by science

science is the study of nature. we've gone pretty further than the tribes have gone with their "millions of years" of "experience".

Quote from lerts :

that a concept is old doesnt prove a thing, take the 4th axiom of mathematics that say 2paralel lines doesnt cut,it took 24 centuries to discover with the euclidean geometry it was false, 2400 years of missconception

what the **** are you talking about? by definition parallels are called lines that never intersect... (staying on the plane here.) so by definition what you say is mindless babble. (and it is not mathematics. it is geometry. if you want to be called a scientist you have to speak like one.)

Quote from lerts :

just think out of the box, how do ufos fly? they break all known laws of physics

what? ufos? what the **** are you talking about again? since we don't know what they are or how they fly, it must mean that they break the laws of nature? the hell?

Quote from lerts :

and i believe the universe is nothing, matter is energy and energy is motion of matter or motion of motion, nothing, just an illusion, a mirage maybe even an hologram

you are mixing science with philosophy in a very wrong way. study of nature (physics) doesn't care about the question "what is it?". matter, energy and motion have definitions in physics. maybe you don't know them, but that doesn't mean you can say such abstract things. you can say such things with no end.

Last edited by george_tsiros, Mon 25 Aug 2008, 14:47.

Quote from The Very End :

And I know that mate, I just had to throw out my opinion about people telling LFS is almost like driving like real

maybe when you go and push it to the limit, the differences are great (between what you can do in lfs and what can be done IRR)

but, if you drive "normaly" , i think that lfs is very accurate.

if that is accepted, then we have to take 2strokes into consideration.

Quote from beefyman666 :

Fear Factory - Archetype

:headbang:

have you listened to their first album? soul of a new machine? it's terrifying.

this is older than you can possibly imagine.

and you really think you can prove that conservation of energy and/or momentum is false? with yoyos?

your calculations are simply wrong. i don't have the courage to start pointing at errors, omissions, confusion or whatever else. i don't have to, either.

half the workings of the universe that we know is based on the idea of conservation of energy.

conservation of quantities in general. not just energy or momentum, but spin isospin etcetcetc

nothing can become of nothing.

if you can't solve a 2 real variable closed form system of equations (which means: a very simple system of equations) in your head, in mere seconds, don't expect to have a snowball's chance in hell to confront one of the most savagely tested axioms in the entire history of mankind.

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

Easy. Punch each guard and ask "Does this hurt", the one that says yes is the one that tells the truth, then ask the guard if this is the door home, if he says no, then it's the other door.

they are guards, i don't think a punch will do much.

i say a kick in the crotch, just to be sure.

Beneath the Massacre - Mechanics of Dysfunction - Better off Dead :headbang::headbang::headbang::cookiemon

Quote from mcintyrej :

Not really - your posts actually are all spam and normally have incredibly short sentences and feature no other punctuation than " . " and quite a few shortened words.

im not spam.

Quote from shiny_red_cobra :

The best feature is that the keys light up so I don't have to turn on the light to see what I'm typing.

you can't type in the dark?

tve. i'm joking

i'm a ...nab?

i go drifting with FXR and knobblies