Vìrgíl's Ûltimate Riddle

[Deleted]

what didn't you understand that my spelling was so bad or are you just trying to divert attention?

Divert attention, of course! It's like you don't even know me.

Now I can see that this is a "serious" thread so I will bid you all adieu.

[Colleenz]

Ignore the boys dipping your pigtails in the inkwell SBS

[mtntigger]

May 3, 2011 10:32:28 GMT -5 @pig said:

SbS the only person "pissing" here is you with your whining about Virgil taking away your imaginary prize.

I whined ONCE and BTW, Virgil already knows how I feel about karma. How many posts have you written about Virgil being wrong on your "problem"?
I'll say bye too for awhile.

[pig]

"I invite them to challenge you to prove me wrong."

From the uncertaintly principle:
deltaT is approx = hbar/deltaE or hbar/m_Zc²

Given this the range can be found using the range equation

c(deltaT) which is approx = hbar(c)/m_zc²

The answer is then simple plug and chug. Approximately 2x10^-18m

"The data I provided are all valid. "Distance" is nowhere to be found in the problem statement and isn't implied by convention "

Oh really?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(particle_radiation)

[teen persuasion]

1. All Slowlings are Lassis
8. All Slowlings are Rovians

so all Slowlings are both Lassis and Rovians

2. All Moonies are Lassis but no Moonies are Rovians

so Moonies and Slowlings have no intersection

5. Some Moonies are Piglets (but not Slowlings or Rovians, as above)

If no empty sets, at least one Piglet is a Moonie, not a Rovian, and not a Slowling, so not possible for all Piglets to be Rovian.

[teen persuasion]

I've just rethought my answer (forgot the whole Debite part).

If all the Moonies that are Piglets are also Debites, then it is possible.

[pig]

Virgil, apparently people think my exchange with you was "rude". I don't see it but if that's how you take it, you have my apology. I don't have anything against you and I do find you creative. There! I said it OK!

[Chocolate Lover]

Now say it like you mean it!!!

[Deleted]

I didn't say you were rude! I said your behavior was less jocular than normal. Get it right!!!

[pig]

I didn't say you said I was rude I said "some people"

[Deleted]

I should have known. I ain't "some people".
(to paraphrase a line from my favorite movie)

[Chocolate Lover]

No, you're "those people"

[Virgil Showlion]

Oh really?

Firstly, the time-energy uncertainty principle yields Delta-t > h_bar/E_Z, not Delta-t ~ h_bar/E_Z. Wikipedia, citing MSU, agrees with the values given by Wolfram (10e-7 - 10e-6 angstrom), not too far off my off-the-cuff original guess of 1e-5 (logarithmically speaking).

Secondly, the article on radiative range is a nice proof that "range" has a definition consistent with what you're looking for. I assumed you meant 'parameter range'. But after reading through the various sources, I admit that "range" usually implies distance when not explicitly defined (yes, yes, don't get your panties in a bunch).

I'm not a physics major. I took one course on the standard model back in my undergrad years. I stand by my argument that the model isn't as intractable as the jargon in the problem statement suggests.

Thirdly, apology accepted. And thank you for the compliment.

Are you a physicist, or did you develop a fascination with gauge bosons in the course of everyday life?

[DebMD (banned)]

Thanx for everything Virgil
Image shack worked great on Cartoon Deb thread for reposting #203, #206 so go ahead and delete.
My karma to you for this wonderfulness!!!

Now to find EEers for my cartoons!!!





Much peace and grace to you.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Deb: What part of Moonbeams instructions didn't you understand? You're not supposed to re-post the cartoons. You're supposed to post the link to your page on Image Shack. [And you're completely off-topic again - it has nothing to do with VIrgil's Riddle's]

[Virgil Showlion]

Might as well use this thread to invite gamers to the scavenger hunt on the games board. (You heard right: there's more than just "alligator bear cougar dingo egret ferret ..." animal cracker parades over there. )

Alas, I shed a single tear as "Virgil's Ultimate Riddle", a good thread and true, fades into obscurity.

[DebMD (banned)]

Well Virgil
Could you start riddle threads for left brainers and right brainers?

[pig]

Well I was going to let this go but since you insist on proving your ignorance, we can continue.

"Firstly, the time-energy uncertainty principle yields Delta-t > h_bar/E_Z, not Delta-t ~ h_bar/E_Z. Wikipedia, citing MSU, agrees with the values given by Wolfram (10e-7 - 10e-6 angstrom), not too far off my off-the-cuff original guess of 1e-5 (logarithmically speaking)."

Here you show your ignorance of basic physics. It doesn't matter how you right it >/= because on the scale it is considered approx = which by the way isn't even what you have written. You have it written as "on the order of" which is totally misleading to anyone who knows anything about physics. Please give the excerpt from that odd non published "thing" you supposedly quote so I can show you your error. Not too far off on the answer "log speak"? LOL that's like saying "I'm sorry sir the bridge was supposed to be 10 meters not 10,000 but on a log scale I was close" LOL

"Secondly, the article on radiative range is a nice proof that "range" has a definition consistent with what you're looking for. I assumed you meant 'parameter range'. But after reading through the various sources, I admit that "range" usually implies distance when not explicitly defined (yes, yes, don't get your panties in a bunch)."

I only cited the reference to prove without a doubt that anyone who knows anything about physics knows what range means. Instead of just admitting that you know jack shit about it you attempt to cover up your ignorance with more ignorant gibberish. Your incorrect assumption on what "range" means is because you don't know physics. An undergraduate physics major knows what 'range" means in this context.

"I'm not a physics major. I took one course on the standard model back in my undergrad years. I stand by my argument that the model isn't as intractable as the jargon in the problem statement suggests."

You don't even have an argument. I never said a thing about jargon that was you. I put forth a SIMPLE (it's actually from undergraduate physics III) and in no way difficult nor complex yet you failed miserably at it.

"Thirdly, apology accepted. And thank you for the compliment. "

I must retract my apology since you simply can not admit that you are wrong.

"Are you a physicist, or did you develop a fascination with gauge bosons in the course of everyday life?"

No, are you? I have, however, had graduate coursework in the following:
Quantum Mechanics
Advanced Engineering Mathematics
Quantum Chemistry
Heat and Mass Transfer
Numerical Analysis
Applied Engineering Mechanics
Deformation and Fracture
Astrophysics (fun elective)
Advanced Thermodynamics
Advanced Classical Dynamics
Applied Engineering Mechanics
Advanced Inorganic Chemistry
Advanced Chemical Thermodynamics

and others that aren't as relevant.

But I suppose you'll continue to insist that you're right (even when you are about 7 orders of magnitude off the correct answer.

[whiskmav]

WHERE THE HELL IS THE NEXT RIDDLE?

[Virgil Showlion]

Here you show your ignorance of basic physics. It doesn't matter how you right it >/= because on the scale it is considered approx = which by the way isn't even what you have written.

Oh get off your horse, Piggo. I'm not going to put down a '≅', which I had to dig up off a freakin' Unicode chart, just because you screwed up the uncertainty relationship. The "odd non-published thing" is a technical report out of Michigan State University. It is clearly linked-to in my post. It also clearly states 10e-17 - 10e-16 m, which is (surprise, surprise) 10e-7 - 10e-6 angstrom.

LOL that's like saying "I'm sorry sir the bridge was supposed to be 10 meters not 10,000 but on a log scale I was close" LOL

You have 300% error between log reference and log actual in your ridiculous analogy.

10e-15 compared to 10e-16: 6.25% error between log reference and log estimate.

So let's go over this again...

Pig's specious analogy: 300%
Virgil's estimate: 6.25%

Stick that in your porker and smoke it.

I only cited the reference to prove without a doubt that anyone who knows anything about physics knows what range means.

I interpret "range" as "parameter range" and suddenly I'm devoid of all physics knowledge? You're really that desperate to save face on this one?

Hey, here's some more Piggian logic for the masses: you can't be bothered to spell "write" properly, so you must know "jack shit" about homonyms and the English language. Any freakin' third-grader knows about homonyms.

And how about another one: in Pig land, 10e-15 m is "seven orders of magnitude" off 10e-16. Who knew you couldn't count zeros. You must know "jack shit" about the positional number system.

I put forth a SIMPLE (it's actually from undergraduate physics III) and in no way difficult nor complex yet you failed miserably at it.

This is just great. Yesterday you were defending your phantom "I specifically asked for a distance" half-arsed problem statement as "I design questions so that you can't simply run and get the answer." Now they're suddenly gimmick-free?

I admitted I was wrong about the tacit assumption of range as distance. The moment I did that, you made the bone-headed extrapolation to "Virgil knows jack about physics.". Heaven help your students if you ever have to teach anyone anything.

I must retract my apology since you simply can not admit that you are wrong.

I readily admitted the one place where I was wrong. The solution I've given is not wrong says Wolfram and MSU. And you can't retract your apology, sir, because I had it sent to the framers and put up on my wall yesterday evening. It reads: "DR. PIG TO VIRGIL: I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A DICK. I CAN'T HELP MYSELF WHEN MY FRAGILE SENSE OF SELF-WORTH IS THREATENED."

As for my graduate coursework, I'm certainly not as physically based as you. I have, however, taken at least a dozen courses combined on graduate quantum mechanics, EM field theory, (ETA non-linear optics,) numerical analysis, and the one undergrad course on the standard model, as I mentioned. My Ph.D. work was on Quantum Control. That's much more in the domain of applied mathematics, but I've never claimed to have extensive knowledge of graduate physics.

I can't wait to hear your explanation for the "7 orders of magnitude".

[Virgil Showlion]

Deleted by me.

[pig]

"DR. PIG TO VIRGIL: I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A DICK. I CAN'T HELP MYSELF WHEN MY FRAGILE SENSE OF SELF-WORTH IS THREATENED."

LOL you're the fragile one. You can't admit you don't know shit about something. You're wrong and you can't even admit it. I hate people like that. You're like a student that thinks by throwing around words that they don't even know what they mean that they will fool someone. And if you think for one minute that someone that has the coursework you claim to and doesn't know what range means you're a fool. Who do you think you're fooling? Not me. Maybe Deb.

[pig]

as I mentioned. My Ph.D. work was on Quantum Control.

LOL you said it was something completely different on MSN.....not only are you an ignorant fool you're also a liar.

[mtntigger]

Found them! 3 posts in a row of posters insulted each other.
NOW STOP IT! Or I'll have Archie come over and sing kumbaya to you.

[pig]

Fricken liar. I have no respect for you, not like I had a lot to being with.

[CarolinaKat]

Molly can come post calming kitty pictures too

[rovo]

Virgil & Pig:

If the two of you do not stop this nonsense I will be forced to give you each a day off from the boards.

rovo -- EE Moderator

[pig]

Don't worry he doesn't exist to me from now on.

[Virgil Showlion]

Says the man as he dodges around the '7 orders of magnitude' issue.

For our edification, Piggo, why not tell everyone what I said about my Ph.D. work on MSN.

[pig]

Keep it up Virgil I hope Rovo bans you. I know what I know.