The Donnell's comb-over is better, that's why we're #1!

it is clear that the EU only considers NATO as a ticket for America to foot their defense bill

How much did the American Tax Payers pay to develop the F35 so the Zio- Bolshevik-Sodomite State-establishment could sell us spare parts?

Lost me...

Is Putin's alleged ideological affinity with Solzenyitzen legitimate - and, if not, what sort of a deceptive landscape does that put the husband of Melanija Knavs in?

Figures.

THE COLD WAR isn't over for Anatoly Golitsyn.

Everything is over for Golitsyn. He died 10 years ago.

Spymaster: The Life of Britain's Most Decorated Cold War Spy and Head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield, Transworld Publishers (May 1, 2018)

By Martin Pearce

[Excerpt]

It's easy to see why Angleton became intoxicated with Golitsyn and his theories, and equally easy to see why the official historian of MI5, Professor Christopher Andrew, was to describe him as 'an unreliable conspiracy theorist'. Golitsyn began by confirming the identities of two Soviet spies the CIA and M16 had known of but whose activities they had never been able to prove legally, and who were already safely in Russia: Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean. He then gave details of some spies who had not been unmasked, including the Briton John Vassall and a Russian double agent who had operated mostly in Germany named Aleksander Kopatzky. Vassall. a relatively low-level official at the Foreign Office. was later arrested, convicted and jailed. The case against Kopatzky was unproven and after a brief period seeking refuge in the Russian Consulate he braved it out and lived peacefully in Virginia for the rest of his days. Golitsyn also gave enough clues for the authorities, at last, to unmask Kim Philby — a spy who, having been effectively neutered a decade earlier, had arguably outlived his usefulness to the Soviets.

For Oldfield, the most relevant of the traitors was the largely anonymous Vassall.

TRUMP'S 'ART OF THE DEAL' GHOSTWRITER TONY SCHWARTZ SAYS 'PUTIN OWNS TRUMP'

“So the Russians pursued Trump as an asset as early as mid-80s,” Schwartz tweeted this month after a story was published about Trump’s 1987 trip to Moscow hosted by the KGB’s travel agency. “His deep compromising connection with a sworn enemy is going to unravel soon in ways that boggle the mind,” he wrote.

https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-art-deal-ghostwriter-tony-schwartz- says-putin-owns-trump-725615

 

New Lies for Old.

Newsweek, what a source. The whole damn magazine sold in 2010 for one dollar, $1.00. It ceased print publication in 2012.

https://www.glaad.org/mediaawards/20/factsanfigures

Newsweek received more nominations for the 20th Annual GLAAD Media Awards than any other newspaper or magazine: one for Outstanding Magazine Article and one for Outstanding Magazine Overall Coverage, as well as two for Outstanding Digital Journalism Article and two for Outstanding Digital Journalism – Multimedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Schwartz_(author)

In August 2017, Schwartz predicted Trump would resign, saying "Trump's presidency is effectively over. Would be amazed if he survives till end of the year. More likely resigns by fall, if not sooner."

Tony Schwartz was full of shit then, he is full of shit now.

Tony Schwartz was full of shit then, he is full of shit now.

Credited co-author of WHAT, Nolu Clump?
Just how full of shyte was he THEN?

Just how full of shyte was he THEN?

As full of shit as he was last year saying, "Trump's presidency is effectively over. Would be amazed if he survives till end of the year. More likely resigns by fall, if not sooner."

Indeed, nearly as full of shit as you. Epicly full of shit.

You sure?

That your final answer?

Cadet Bonespur got Hillary in jail yet?

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere....”

Hillary Clinton, May 2013 speech to the Brazilian bank Banco Itau, [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p.28]

My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere....” Hillary Clinton

Comrade Clinton's "Dream" is whatever her handlers at the Central Party tell her it is.

Got Dialectic Crisis?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7874

Hey bro quick question.

From:Roy.Spence@gsdm.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-10-16 20:34
Subject: Hey bro quick question.

IRS was hacked. I think the State Department was hacked. Sony hacked. Banks hacked. As we try and close the Benghazi Chapter and the email drip drip. Is there ever a moment in Time not to Defend the decision but layout the fact.... HRC servers were not hacked. Know this is a naive thought but just thinking.

Sent from my iPhone

"I thought about something just now:

The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,"

Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pDtgWUtdUM

(D)onaldo The Magnificent, Freeedy Drumpf's Poodle Dog heir - is a typical, LYING, shyster, con-artist buffoon who has a predictable and exploitable history of thinking with his dick. His LGBT Sodomite agenda pushing daughter and Son-in-law are a reflection of that morally RELEVANT FACT.

And Putin is operating on a whole other INFORMED level.

And Putin is operating on a whole other INFORMED level.

As if you would know anything about operating on an informed level. )))

LOL

)))

Still too inept to effectively use the Google.

You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.

You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.

Do the math, Donkey Breath.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186

)))

Still too inept to effectively use the Google.

You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176

---

#176. To: VxH (#175)

How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?

It came along quite well. Anything that travels 1950 feet in 1.06 seconds travels an average velocity of 2122.64 feet per second. The formula is distance divided by time.

How are you coming along with your bullet going splat at ~520 feet ground distance from Mandalay Bay?

How did you work out that negative 33º angle?

Side a represents the vertical height of Paddock's vantage point. At the 32nd floor, and at 10.9 feet per floor, (32-1) x 10.9 = 338 feet.

The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees.

For another calculator, see:

http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/

It appears that VxH drew an imaginary horizontal line d at a vertical height of 338 feet from the ground, and an imaginary 338 foot line e down to the ground, bringing into view a rectangle with a mirror image triangle to that above.

VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.

With a specified shooting angle of 33º at the junction of lines c and d, the angle made by sides c and b would also be 33º, and angle ß, made by sides a and c would be 57º. (The right angle at point A is 90º. The other two angles must add up to 90º.)

With side a being 338 feet, side b would be 520.4743578 feet, and side c would be 620.5944 feet.

As may be seen, disregarding gravity, if the bullet flew downward at the specified 33º from a height of 338 feet, it would fly a straight line of sight path into the ground at ~520 feet from the Mandalay Bay at ground level.

Calculating the bullet velocity after that point may be difficult, even with secret Klingon math.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-11-07   16:14:00 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181

#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)

VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.

Yep. You're almost right - I've been meaning to take another look at the angle with a model in Google Sketchup... which says At 1290' from a height of 338' is -14.7

Damn, you are more screwed up than I thought.

Now you are presenting a triangle with side a being 338 feet, side b being 1290 feet 7 inches (1290.5833 ft), and an hypotenuse of 1009 ft 4 in. I positively can't remember the last triangle I saw where the hypotenuse was shorter than one of the sides. Your Klingon math is magic, and Google Sketchup is a miracle worker.

If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet.

If the angle of elevation is 14.7 degrees, and the range is 1290' 7", then the height would be 345.0311072 feet and each floor would be over 11 feet.

Put down Google sketch and pick up a scientific calculator and do some trigonometry. You can actually get correct results with trig.

You are supposed to be dazzling me with your math skills, not some shit like Google Sketchup.

Google Sketchup? Really?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-11-08   23:52:54 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do the math, Donkey Breath.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186

Any right triangle must have sides and angles where the Sine, Cosine, Tangent, C-Tangent, Secand, and Co-secant correctly compute.

If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet.

Please do demonstrate the trigonometry behind your childish Google Sketchup nonsense.

Do the math. I will get you started.

Sine
SOH - opposite/hypotenuse

Cosine
CAH - adjacent/hypotenuse

Tangent
TOA - opposite/adjacent

Co-tangent
CAO - adjacent/opposite

Secant
SHA - hypotenuse/adjacent

Co-Secant
SHO - hypotenuse/opposite

You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176

---

#176. To: VxH (#175)

How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?

It came along quite well. Anything that travels 1950 feet in 1.06 seconds travels an average velocity of 2122.64 feet per second. The formula is distance divided by time.

How are you coming along with your bullet going splat at ~520 feet ground distance from Mandalay Bay?

How did you work out that negative 33º angle?

Side a represents the vertical height of Paddock's vantage point. At the 32nd floor, and at 10.9 feet per floor, (32-1) x 10.9 = 338 feet.

The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees.

For another calculator, see:

http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/

It appears that VxH drew an imaginary horizontal line d at a vertical height of 338 feet from the ground, and an imaginary 338 foot line e down to the ground, bringing into view a rectangle with a mirror image triangle to that above.

VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.

With a specified shooting angle of 33º at the junction of lines c and d, the angle made by sides c and b would also be 33º, and angle ß, made by sides a and c would be 57º. (The right angle at point A is 90º. The other two angles must add up to 90º.)

With side a being 338 feet, side b would be 520.4743578 feet, and side c would be 620.5944 feet.

As may be seen, disregarding gravity, if the bullet flew downward at the specified 33º from a height of 338 feet, it would fly a straight line of sight path into the ground at ~520 feet from the Mandalay Bay at ground level.

Calculating the bullet velocity after that point may be difficult, even with secret Klingon math.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-11-07   16:14:00 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181

#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)

VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.

Yep. You're almost right - I've been meaning to take another look at the angle with a model in Google Sketchup... which says At 1290' from a height of 338' is -14.7

Damn, you are more screwed up than I thought.

Now you are presenting a triangle with side a being 338 feet, side b being 1290 feet 7 inches (1290.5833 ft), and an hypotenuse of 1009 ft 4 in. I positively can't remember the last triangle I saw where the hypotenuse was shorter than one of the sides. Your Klingon math is magic, and Google Sketchup is a miracle worker.

If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet.

If the angle of elevation is 14.7 degrees, and the range is 1290' 7", then the height would be 345.0311072 feet and each floor would be over 11 feet.

Put down Google sketch and pick up a scientific calculator and do some trigonometry. You can actually get correct results with trig.

You are supposed to be dazzling me with your math skills, not some shit like Google Sketchup.

Google Sketchup? Really?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-11-08   23:52:54 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do the math, Donkey Breath.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186

You do the math.

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

As soon as you publish your proof for your mathematical formula c < b.

Even a complete jackass, such as yourself, can see from your original play picture, from your #181 to which I linked, that you showed a hypotenuse of 1009' 4".

Your original play picture shows part of a circle with a radius of 338'.

Your second play picture displays the same radius of the circle as 338' on an up/down line. On a somewhat downward slanting horizontal line, you added a new measurement of the radius of that same circle at 324' 6". How the radius shrinks on one side by 11' 6" is not explained. It's a magic circle, or magic math.

1009' 4" + 338' is 1347' 4".

1009' 4" + 324' 6" is 1333' 10".

Keep changing that side radius distance, make believe it was part of the original hypotenuse, until you get your math to work.

What the magic circle with the changing radius is doing there is a mystery. The difference between level travel to end point and travel from elevation to end point is c - b, not the vertical distance of the elevation.

The 338' up/down radius of the circle indicates the elevation of the shooter, and the circle indicates you had an irresistable impulse to draw a circle and make believe the radius was something other than 338' at another angle. 338' was a stated distance of elevation. 324' 6" appears to be a figure plucked from your ass.

Given angles A (14.70°) and C (90.00°) and side a (338') —
side B and angles b and c may be readily calculated —
just not to the values you give them.

A = 14.70°
B = ?º
C = 90.00°

a = 338.00 ft
b = ? ft
c = ? ft

A + B + C = 180º
A + B = 90º
B = 90-Aº
B = 75.30º

b = sin(B) * a / sin(A)

c = sin(C) * a

Does your one hit "expert" think Putin's alleged affinity with Alexander Solzhenitsyn is legitimate or Solzhenitsyn "debunked" too?

Does your one hit "expert" think Putin's alleged affinity with Alexander Solzhenitsyn is legitimate or Solzhenitsyn "debunked" too?

Ivan Petrovich Sidorov getting only one hit.

)))

Such incompetence.

))) ))) )))

Where's your math? Ain't got none?

How did you get a circle with one radius 11' 6" less than the other?

Hear ya go, Donkey Breath:

"I didn't rescale the circle for the purpose of determining the angle. So - No bigee with the radius 324' 6" - the dimensions still add up for the hypotenuse."

https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C1860

Putin's alleged ideological affinity with Solzhenitsyn - Debunked or not?

Hear ya go, Donkey Breath:

 

A	338	114244
B	1290.5833333333	1665605.34027778
A^2+B^2		1779849.34027778
		1334.1099430998
324.5+1009.33=	1333.83

 

"I didn't rescale the circle for the purpose of determining the angle. So - No bigee with the radius 324' 6" - the dimensions still add up for the hypotenuse."

WRONG.

Your claim of a radius of 324' 6" is just bullshit pulled out of your ass.

Your incorrect hypotenuse is still 1009' 4" + the actual radius length 338' = 1347' 4". Your newly minted hypotenuse of 1333.83 feet, using data pulled from your ass, is still WRONG.

If you change the circle to a 324' 6" radius, the 1009' 4" section of the hypotenuse would need to expand 13' 6" to 1022' 10" to reach the radius circle.

In any case, I gave you the formulas and your "calculations" leave out any calculations and all your results are wrong.

You still have both 338 and 324' 6" in your number puzzle.

On the first line you list 338 and 114244. Nobody asked you what the square of 338 is.

On the second line you list 1290.5833333333 and 1665605.34027778. Nobody asked you what the square of 1290' 7" is.

You were asked to solve for side b, not pull the figure 1290' 7" out of your ass and square it.

Use the trig function and discover that the figure 1290' 7" is mathematically impossible. An angle of elevation of 14.7° does not reach an elevation of 338' at a distance of 1290' 7". I gave you the formula. I can't help it if you are too dumb, stupid, ignorant, and incompetent to use the formula. Pulling 1290 feet out of your ass is not a mathematical solution to side b.

On your third line you list the sum of 338 squared and 1290' 7" squared.

This would be the hypotenuse if you had properly solved for side b using the trig formula b = sin(B) * a / sin(A). That does not give 1290' 7".

The hypotenuse, solved with the formula c = sin(C) * a is not 1333.83.

Indeed, your wacky diagram at the bottom shows the distance of 1333' 11" and at the top of the rectangle shows 1009' 4" and 324' 6" which adds to 1333' 10". Of course, this relied on you fudging the 324' 6" distance by 13' 6". Unfortunately, c = sin(C) * a does not solve to 1333 anything using the known, given figures of A=14.70°, C=90°, and a=338'. The three given figures dictate what the remaining sides and angles MUST be.

Side a can be 338 or 324' 6", but it cannot be both. It is 338' as the given height of the window.

324' 6" is just a bullshit number, pulled out of your ass. It does not belong to anything but your imagination.

You are a mathematically incompetent nincompoop.

Trig, TRig, TRIG!!!

Do the math!!!!!

Or just admit that you do not know how to work with basic trig functions.

our claim of a radius of 324' 6" is just bullshit pulled out of your ass.

GFYS Douchebag.

The numbers add up.

A^2+B^2=C^2

Putin's alleged ideological affinity with Solzhenitsyn - Debunked or not?

324' 6" appears to be a figure plucked from your ass.

BTW- No, it was the dimension of the circle in the model prior to changing the elevation to 338' which YOU pulled out of your wherever. IIRC I estimated the 326' 6" from the model of the hotel in google earth. But your 338 sounded sooo authoritative, I just changed the elevation and didn't bother with the circle.

Are you not appeased?

If you take a compass and measure the 338 and 326' 6" segment, the lengths will differ accordingly.

BUT LOL! I love how 324' 6" is all it takes to TRIGger your pathetic tantrums. It's hilarious.

324' 6" appears to be a figure plucked from your ass.

BTW- No, it was the dimension of the circle in the model prior to changing the elevation to 338' which YOU pulled out of your wherever. IIRC I estimated the 326' 6" from the model of the hotel in google earth. But your 338 sounded sooo authoritative, I just changed the elevation and didn't bother with the circle.

338 feet was calculated by a given floor/ceiling measurement of 10.9 feet per floor, multiplied by 31 = 337.9 feet, which would put Paddock standing on the 32nd floor.

After you shorten side a to 324.60 feet, and retain hypotenuse c at 1333.83, and side b at 1290.58 feet, it is impossible to retain a right traingle as it is a mathematical certainty that angle C will be greater than 90°. You will also have changed angle a to 14.08°, angle b to 75.36°. Angle c will be 90.56°. And Paddock will fall to the 30th floor.

As you changed the triangle so it is no longer a right triangle, the formula for right triangles a² + b² = c² no longer works.

Congratulations, your spider infested mind just gave birth to a misshapen mess which I shall christen Gollum's Triangle.

As can readily be visualized, if you shorten side a by 13½ feet, and keep the dimensions of b and c, side a must leave its vertical position and fall away from point A as that is the only way the two lines remain connected. The 13½ foot shortening drops Paddock to the 30th floor, and the departure from the vertical drops him some more. Line B-C is supposed to be representing the elevation from the ground to Paddock's window. You can arbitrarily just change a figure on your cartoon, but Paddock's window did not actually move.

If you shorten side a to 324.60, and you retain the vertical side to a right triangle, and retain the angle of elevation at 14.70°, then you must get side b at 1237.30 feet and side c at 1279.17 feet. The hypotenuse, side c or line B-A has been shortened 54.66 feet.

))) I love how you think changing one measurement of a triangle does not change anything else.

There are only 3 sides and 3 angles to a triangle. All of the miscellaneous lines you drew beyond that are just surplus bullshit.

You have presented Gollum's Triangle, a misshapen pile of shit. Just because you draw it in the shape of a right triangle does not mean the associated data makes a right triangle possible.

Where's your MATH?

A = 14.70°
B = ?º
C = 90.00°

a = 324.60 ft
b = ? ft
c = ? ft

A + B + C = 180º
A + B = 90º
B = 90-Aº
B = 75.30º

b = sin(B) * a / sin(A)

c = sin(C) * a

 is impossible to retain a right traingle as it is a mathematical certainty that angle C will be greater than 90°.

LOL.

I just dragged the top of the line until the dimension corresponding to elevation was 338.

Which is why the sides of my triangle add up.

Boo hoo for you, comrade, and your 1 hit state-school indoctrinated "solution".

In America, we improvise!

>>Where's your MATH?

Right here Donkey Breath:

A^2+B^2=C^2

Get the fuck out of here.

If A=14.70°, side a = 338' and side b = 1290.58'

then angle B = 75.68° and angle C = 89.62°

and hypotenuse c = 1331.95'

Of course, with angle C being 89.62°, you have another misshapen Gollum Triangle, not a right triangle. With your given data, it is a mathematical impossibility to have a right triangle. It is impossible to have angle C be 90°. Trig does not lie. You do. Your stipulated angle of 14.70 and sides of 338 and 1290.58 cannot make a right triangle.

As you cannot possibly have a right triangle, you application of a formula applicable only to right triangles yields bullshit results.

You get two different figures for hypotenuse c, 1334.11 and 1333.83, both of them wrong.

With sides of 338, 1334.11 and 1290.58, you cannot get a right triangle with an angles of 14.70 and 75.30.

Provide 3 sides and 3 angles that are not mathematically impossible to work with each other to form a right triangle.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

You created two radii, one being 338' and the other 324.5'. All radii of the same circle are the same length. You get your choice of one.

If the radius is 338', then the hypotenuse is 1009.33 + 338 = 1347.33 as shown in your cartoon #1.

You can't fudge your figures by 13.5' by claiming two radii of different lengths.

Your figures are still a mess.

With angle A = 14.70°, angle C = 90° and side a = 338',

Angle B = 75.30°, side b = 1288.38' and hypotenuse c = 1331.98', as sure as

b = sin(B) * a / sin(A)

c = sin(C) * a

Try it with trig when you learn how. The figures actually work.

Side b is not 1290.5833 if the angle of elevation is 14.70° or you do not have a right triangle. You have yet to describe how you determined the length of side b is 1290.5833 feet.

Hypotenuse c is not 1334.1099.

Nor is hypotenuse c is 1009.33 + 338 = 1347.33' as per your first cartoon.

Nor can you even make believe hypotenuse c is 1009.33 + 324.5 = 1033.8 as per your revised cartoon with two different radii.

With a 324.5' radius you lose your right triangle.

With a 338' radius your bullshit cartoon yields a hypotenuse of 1347.33.

With a 338' radius your bullshit cartoon yields a hypotenuse of 1347.33.

BZZZT!

324.5+1009.33= 1333.83

Do the Math Comrade Donkey Breath.

Simplified with the irrelevant circle removed.

Title: RED SMOKE, COMMIE MIRRORS

With a 338' radius your bullshit cartoon yields a hypotenuse of 1347.33.

BZZZT!

324.5+1009.33= 1333.83

324.5+1009.33= 1333.83

324.5 is the imaginary radius of a circle in your cartoon when the radius is not 338 on the other side of the cartoon circle. It is useful to obtain imaginary results.

- - - - - - - - - -

VxH #56

Do the Math Comrade Donkey Breath.

- - - - - - - - - -

Very well shithead. Here is the math which confirms you are a mathematics illiterate shithead. The mission was to find a right triangle with Angle a being 14.70 degrees and side a being 338 feet long. You look like you are monkey, standing in a crowded stadium at centerfield, fucking a football. You FAILED.

The problem is given an elevation of 338 feet and an angle of elevation of 14.70 degrees, find the right triangle which accurately depicts the given two pieces of data, with accurate angles and accurate lengths of the remaining side and hypotenuse.

There are only six data points. They are the three sides of a right triangle representing length, and the three angles of the triangle. All else on your cartoon was surplus bullshit.

For the given data of 338 feet and 14.70°, and 90° for a right triangle, the other three data points are a calculated mathematical certainty. The certainty is that your stated results are incompatible with the given data points.

To make this simple for those not mathematically inclined, one may use CoSinCalc.com and enter data and let them present a triangle with all sides and angles presented. CoSinCalc.com gives results to two decimal places, plus the mathematical formulas used to derive the unknown data.

At the link is their depiction of the triangle that results from entering angle A 14.70° and angle B 90°, and side a 338 feet.

Angle B = 75.30°. Side b [AC] = 1288.38 feet. Hypotenuse c [AB] = 1331.98 feet.

http://cossincalc.com/#angle_a=14.7&side_a=338&angle_b=&side_b=&angle_c=90&side_c=&angle_unit=degree

Just hit the "Calculator" button to reset for data entry of whatever you choose, such as the VxH imaginary data. It does not work for a reason — it is bullshit.

- - - - - - - - - -

For the more mathematically inclined,

The sine, cosine, tangent, cosecant, secant and cotangent values of an angle are constants, not variables.

To find sin(14.70) on a scientific calculator

• press the button marked sin.

• the calculator displays sin(

• enter 14.70)

• the calculator shows sin(14.70)

• press the button marked =

• The calculator displays the solution 0.253757945

- - - - - - - - - -

sin(a) = opp/hyp

With a right triangle, the length of the side opposite angle a, divided by the length of the hypotenuse, equals 0.253757945.

cos(a) = adj/hyp

tan(a) = opp/adj

csc(a) = 1/sin(a) = hyp/opp

sec(a) = 1/cos(a) = hyp/adj

cot(a) = 1/tan(a) = adj/opp

- - - - - - - - - -

sin(14.70) is always 0.253757945

cos(14.70) is always 0.967267753

tan(14.70) is always 0.262345089

csc(14.70) is always 3.940763319

sec(14.70) is always 1.033839903

cot(14.70) is always 3.8117733280

- - - - - - - - - -

sin(75.30) = 0.9672677528

sin(90.00) = 1

In a right triangle, one with a 90° angle, given the length of one side, and either acute angle, one may accurately calculate the remaining angle and the lengths of the other two sides.

With a specific acute angle, such as 14.70°, the sides are always in a specific relational proportion. Knowing the length on any one side absolutely dictates the lengths of the other two sides, to be compatible with the given angle.

Point A of our triangle is at ground level. Point B is represents the stated elevation of 338 feet. Point C is at represents level directly below Point B.

A line drawn from point A rising at 14.70° will eventually rise to a height of 338 feet. Walking along the horizontal line AC eventually leads to the point where a vertical line upward would transect the rising line AB precisely where the elevation of 338 feet is reached.

The line BC ends at the given elevation of 338 feet.

The results from CoSinCalc.com were:

Angle A = 14.70
Angle B = 75.30°
Angle C = 90.00°

Side a (B to C) = 338 feet
Side b (A to C) = 1288.38
Hypotenuse c (A to B) = 1331.98

- - - - - - - - - -

Using the scientific calculator to more decimal places, the same calculations are:

Angle B = 180° - 14.70° - 90.00° = 75.30°

side b = sin(B) * a/sin(A)
side b = sin(75.30°) * 338 / sin(14.70°)
side b = 0.9672677528 * 338 / 0.253757945
side b = 326.9672677528 / 0.253757945
side b = 1288.500613 feet

side c = sin(C) * a/sin(A)
side c = sin(90.00°) * 338 / sin(14.70°)
side c = 338/0.253757945
side c = 1331.978 feet

- - - - - - - - - -

Now let us examne the VxH nonsense. His original angle of elevation was 33°, but I pointed out that would mean Paddock's shots would have been closer to his own big toe than the fairgrounds. Then the angle of elevation was changed by proclamation to 14.70°

VxH has never explained how his side b distance of 1290 feet 7 inches or 1290.5833333333 feet was derived. Although asked for, no calculation or explanation has been provided.

Using side 1290.583333333 and 338, and an angle of elevation of 14.70 degrees, the trig functions reveal that, at said angle of elevation, the elevation itself is not reached at a distance of 1290.583333333 feet, but at 1288.500613 feet. The side b length is whack by 2 feet.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56433&Disp=53#C53

His hypotenuse is calculated as a² + b² = c² or 1334.1099430998. This is calculated using the mysteriously appearing side b data, which is whack by 2 feet.

Then it is alternately stated as 324.5+1009.33 = 1333.83

What 324.5 or 1009.33 represent is left a mystery. Added together, they equal 1333.83, representing nothing in particular.

The cartoon has a circle with radius 1 and radius 2; and a triangle with hypotenuse 1 and hypotenuse 2; and a side just dropped in with no explanation of how it was calculated, or if it was calculated or just proclaimed. In any case. the claimed side b length is whack by 2 feet.

When drawing a right triangle with side a of 338 feet, angle A of 14.70 degrees, and side b of 1290.5833333333, CosSinCalc.com provides the resulting Gollum Triangle:

http://cossincalc.com/#angle_a=14.7&side_a=338&angle_b=&side_b=1290.583333333&angle_c=&side_c=&angle_unit=degree

As one may see, with Angle a specified as 14.70°, and sides a and b specified as 338 feet and 1290.583333333 feet,

Angle B is 75.68° and
Angle C is 89.62°
and the triangle contains no angle of 90°
Oh shit, that's not good.

Hypotenuse c becomes 1331.95 feet, as opposed to his stated result of 1334.1099430998 feet. This is because his sides, combined with the specified angle of 14.70 degrees, requires that the 90° angle b change to 89.62°, and what was a vertical line to transect the hypotenuse is now tilted toward point A, shortening the length of the hypotenuse.

As I previously pointed out, a² + b² = c² only works for right triangles. His length of hypotenuse c is calculated with an inapplicable formula as his side b, and when combined with the stipulated angle a of 14.70°, is incompatible with a right triangle.

We can try to fix this using angles 14.70° and 90° and side 1290.583333333 feet.

http://cossincalc.com/#angle_a=14.7&side_a=&angle_b=90&side_b=1290.583333333&angle_c=&side_c=&angle_unit=degree

Oh dear.

As one may see, with Angle a specified as 14.70°, and Angle c specified as 90°, and side b as 1290.583333333 feet, the right triangle is forced by data entry of the 90° angle, but side a, the elevation of 338 feet is now impossible and must be raised 7 inches.

When solving for an angle of elevation of 14.70° and an elevation of 338.00 feet, results incompatible with 14.70° or 338.00 feet are shit.

Well, hell, let's just try the three VxH sides:

http://cossincalc.com/#angle_a=&side_a=338&angle_b=&side_b=1290.583333333&angle_c=&side_c=1334.1099430998&angle_unit=degree

Entering side a=338 feet and side b=1290.583333333 feet and hypotenuse c=1334.1099430998 feet we get,

Angle A = 14.68°
Angle B = 75.32°
Angle C = 90.00°

Oh shit again! The resulting triangle is incompatible with the angle of elevation of 14.70°.

When solving for an angle of elevation of 14.70° and an elevation of 338.00 feet, results incompatible with 14.70° or 338.00 feet are shit.

The VxH Gollum Triangle is incompatible with the specified angle of elevation, the elevation itself, or the necessity of a 90 degree angle to make a vertical line and a right triangle.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I can observe the truth is that wormholes are all around us, only they're too small to see. Wormholes are very tiny. They occur in nooks and crannies in space and time. You might find it a tough concept, but stay with me.

Nothing is flat or solid. If you look closely enough at anything you'll find holes and wrinkles in it. It's a basic physical principle, and it even applies to time. Even something as smooth as a pool ball has tiny crevices, wrinkles and voids. Now it's easy to show that this is true in the first three dimensions. But trust me, it's also true of the fourth dimension. There are tiny crevices, wrinkles and voids in time. Down at the smallest of scales, smaller even than molecules, smaller than atoms, we get to a place called the quantum foam. This is where wormholes exist. Tiny tunnels or shortcuts through space and time constantly form, disappear, and reform within this quantum world. And they actually link two separate places and two different times.

But this is only introductory to the theory that "time is a derivative function of state-change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) it is observed in."

- - - - - - - - - -

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55999&Disp=139#C139

#139. To: A K A Stone (#38)

You can believe God is a liar.

Or I can observe that Time is a derivative function of state-change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) it is observed in.

And that God's inertial frame isn't yours! :-/

VxH posted on 2018-06-14 20:12:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=39740&Disp=62#C62

#62. To: Don (#58) (Edited)

Who is your God?

Who/whatever it is that says water freezes consistently at 32 degrees F, that objects fall and accelerate at 15 ft per second per second, that time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the (billions of years old) inertial frame(s) where it is observed, that V = I x R, and that Nature selected HETEROsexual reproduction for humans - and not the mutual masturbation selected and worshiped by reprobate perverts of Nature.

The Creator of the self-evident laws of the universe who doesn't require interpretation by, or the intercession of, some parrot adorned in vestigial plumage left over from the Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian empires -- perched atop a self-serving, man-made, state-established, fallible and uninspiring religious hierarchic pyramid of Ba-al shyte.

The ONE God.

VxH posted on 2015-05-21 4:47:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3007479/posts?page=7#7

To: BCW

Bullshyte.

Time is a derivative function of state change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) that it is observed within.

NO SALE

7 posted on 4/13/2013, 10:53:56 AM by TArcher ("TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men" -- Does that still work?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3561255/posts?page=75#75

To: mad_as_he$$

Try the English version:

Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed.

So simple a 2nd grader could understand it without being relatively special.

75 posted on 6/15/2017, 4:05:50 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3548338/posts?page=92#92

To: bobby.223

That’s what “time travel” is super genius.

Fictional, government grant funded, Bullshyte.

90 posted on 4/29/2017, 7:13:24 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

To: HLPhat

Hopefully some interesting “math” will fall out of this guy’s work!

String Theory may be a dead end in cosmology but the “math” behind it is finding uses elsewhere, e.g physics of surfaces and other “interfaces”.

91 posted on 4/29/2017, 7:21:49 PM by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

To: Reily

Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed.

State change always goes forward.

Grant-funded mathemaconartists can’t change that self-evident fact.

92 posted on 4/29/2017, 7:38:32 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

To: HLPhat

I’m sorry but the way you stated that makes no sense.

And new mathematical concepts may have use whether they are physically realizable or not.

I am amazed you can judge his work without having read a single paper produced.

Jealous perhaps?

93 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:01:39 PM by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

To: Reily

It make sense just fine to anyone who understands the difference between special relativity and fictional Bullshyte.

94 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:04:48 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

To: HLPhat

I understand both special & general relativity but am willing to listen to someone tell me something new. I will judge its validity only after that.

95 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:12:28 PM by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

To: Reily

Then you shouldn’t have any trouble understanding that Time a derivative function of state-change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frames in which it is observed.

And that state change always moves forward.

96 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:22:40 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

To: HLPhat

Not the way you state it!

Do you mean this d(Some State)/dt vs E - energy inside the inertial frames is greater then zero when t- time is greater then zero?

97 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:33:57 PM by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

To: Reily

Nope I mean what I said. That T is a function of state-change that progresses relative to E.

Meanwhile, in the space-time of the emperor’s new lavender underwear..

“Most of the published paper is about picking holes in it. so, if anything, the paper says time machines are less possible than ever.”

What does this mean?

98 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:39:47 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

To: HLPhat

I’m done talking to you.
You’re purposely being an pass!

99 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:43:23 PM by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.facebook.com/ArrivalMovie/

FACEBOOK page of Arrival, the Movie.

See COMMENT by William Burke.

William Burke SMH. This movie exemplifies why kids these days can't even apply science well enough to understand what sex they are.

Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed.

State-change always moves forward.

Despite what FICTION psychotically imagines, there is no time travel and you can't tell the future because (surprise), it hasn't happened yet.

Reality, deal with it.

FAIL.
June 5 at 2:58am

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Replies:

June 5 at 2:58am
David Bouley

David Bouley All based on what we think we know. But if it makes you more comfortable to live a closed-minded existence, by all means...

- - - - - - - - - -

July 14 at 3:18pm
William Burke

William Burke It's science FICTION.

Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed.

State-change always moves forward.

July 14 at 3:41pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

324.5 is the imaginary radius of a circle

No. It was the radius of a circle in a sketch; a circle which I didn't erase from the sketch before revising the elevation triangle in the sketch with your 338 elevation.

Easily TRIGgered much?

LOL

Do the Math OComrade Donkey Breath.

A Squared + B Squared = C Squared.

http://mathforum. org/library/drmath/view/57232.html

Simplified with the irrelevant circle removed.

LOL

Do the Math OComrade Donkey Breath.

A Squared + B Squared = C Squared.

http://mathforum. org/library/drmath/view/57232.html

EPIC FAIL. Your Dr. Math shows you how to do a² + b² = c². It does not show you how to create a right triangle with acute angles of 14.70° and 85.30°. Your grammar school math does not work for that.

You still provide no means by which you derived side b of 1290.583333333 feet. Given only one side, 338 feet, it is not possible to derive either of the other two sides using a² + b² = c². So you just made up 1290.583333333 which looks impressive with seven decimal places, but what did you use to "calculate" it. Don't be bashful. Do tell. Show us the "math" that you used.

Your right triangle, with those sides, is incompatible with the given angle of elevation of 14.70°. So, still, all you have is a pile of incorrect shit. At a 14.70° angle of elevation, and at a distance of 1290.583333333 feet, the altitude reached in not 368 feet.

Keep fucking that football while the stadium looks on. Keep trying with the grade school math, super genius. And remember you have specified angles of 14.70° and 90° and opposite the 14.70° angle you have a specified side of 338 feet. Those are given data, not variables.

As you know all about "Time is a derivative function of state-change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) it is observed in," surely you have the math skills to find the sides and angles of a right triangle.

Let's see your three rib-tickling sides again:

http://cossincalc.com/#angle_a=&side_a=338&angle_b=&side_b=1290.583333333&angle_c=&side_c=1334.1099430998&angle_unit=degree

Entering side a=338 feet and side b=1290.583333333 feet and hypotenuse c=1334.1099430998 feet we get,

Angle A = 14.68°
Angle B = 75.32°
Angle C = 90.00°

Still fucked! The resulting triangle is incompatible with the angle of elevation of 14.70°. Your triangle is the wrong size and shape.

When solving for an angle of elevation of 14.70° and an elevation of 338.00 feet, results incompatible with 14.70° or 338.00 feet are shit. You've got shit.

The VxH Gollum Triangle is incompatible with the specified angle of elevation, the elevation itself, or the necessity of a 90 degree angle to make a vertical line and a right triangle.

When solving for an angle of elevation of 14.70° and an elevation of 338.00 feet,

Yawn, as has been explained multiple times - the model was a SKETCH with left over elements that were not re-scaled when I updated the model with your 338 elevation.

Do the TRIGgered Math, OCD Donkey Breath.