Originally posted by h1a8
I have a masters degree in pure mathematics.
Originally posted by h1a8
I studied physics up to physics III over 23 years ago in college.
I tutored and taught mathematics for over 20 years. I tutored and taught physics I for over 10 years.
I'm literally deriving the binding energy for white dwarfs, as a function of mass and radius, as we speak for a future thread about planetary- and stellar destruction.
Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
Did you by chance study Astrophysics ? And are you math skills up there? I need a little bit of advice.
Originally posted by h1a8
Never claimed such. You are just making shit up as usual.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16743364&highlight=bullseye+train#post16743364
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Originally posted by Astner
So with pure I assume you mean analytical mathematics, as opposed to numeric or discrete, right? So if I threw a basic Lie Algebra problem at you, you'd be able to solve it, right?What the **** is Physics III, and at what level have you thaught physics? There's a difference between plugging numbers into Newton's formulas and deriving Hamiltonians.
I'm literally deriving the binding energy for white dwarfs, as a function of mass and radius, as we speak for a future thread about planetary- and stellar destruction.
What the ****?
?
Originally posted by StiltmanFTWThank you for proving my point (your reading comprehension sucks and you make shit up).
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16743364&highlight=bullseye+train#post16743364
I stated that I can perform a particular feat that Netflix SHOW Bullseye did UNDER specific stipulations.
Never did I state that I can achieve all the feats bullseye did with mere practice. I even stated (your link shows it) that performing all the feats consistently IS A DIFFERENT STORY.
Each feat on its own, in terms of accuracy, is NOT superhuman.
If you are arguing that doing ALL those feats, in terms of accuracy, as consistently as Bulleye did is superhuman then that's a different argument.
Originally posted by Astner
I literally have a M.Sc. in Fundamental Physics (cosmology- and elementary particle physics) and you're asking the dude who's quoting Wikipedia if you can ask him a question pertaining astronomy.
So, do you agree or disagree this "Feat" is quantifiable?
If you agree, we can discuss in pms.
Originally posted by Astner
I literally have a M.Sc. in Fundamental Physics (cosmology- and elementary particle physics) and you're asking the dude who's quoting Wikipedia if you can ask him a question pertaining astronomy.
I don't doubt that you were a good student but you don't seem like the guy to ask for the information I need. No offense.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
So, do you agree or disagree this "Feat" is quantifiable?If you agree, we can discuss in pms.
Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
I don't doubt that you were a good student but you don't seem like the guy to ask for the information I need. No offense.
Originally posted by Astner
I can't discern what's being said in the thumbnail and the link doesn't redirect me to a higher resolution scan.
Originally posted by h1a8
Thank you for proving my point (your reading comprehension sucks and you make shit up).
Says the guy who couldn't even comprehend his own scan? 😱
Originally posted by h1a8
I stated that I can perform a particular feat that Netflix SHOW Bullseye did UNDER specific stipulations.Never did I state that I can achieve all the feats bullseye did with mere practice. I even stated (your link shows it) that performing all the feats consistently IS A DIFFERENT STORY.
And yet everyone laughed at you and keeps mocking you for it.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=16740608#post16740608
I guess they didn't understand you, either? 😉
You should get cattleprodded to death, you moron.
Originally posted by One Big Mob
There's no winning from interacting with h1. You can't outdebate him or prove him wrong... I mean you can, easily... but you can't stop him.I wouldn't mind slugging him in the face until both my hands were broken and I elbowed him enough that I couldn't use my arms for the next couple of days... as a joke.
👆
Originally posted by Astner
So with pure I assume you mean analytical mathematics, as opposed to numeric or discrete, right? So if I threw a basic Lie Algebra problem at you, you'd be able to solve it, right?What the **** is Physics III, and at what level have you thaught physics? There's a difference between plugging numbers into Newton's formulas and deriving Hamiltonians.
I'm literally deriving the binding energy for white dwarfs, as a function of mass and radius, as we speak for a future thread about planetary- and stellar destruction.
What the ****?
The masters is a general degree although I focused in analysis. PhD you have to focus on something more particular (number theory, statistics, analysis, etc).
Never even heard of Lie algebras. School never offered that class. Wasn't a requirement. Abstract or Modern algebra yes. And it’s been over 20 years since I took those classes. I been teaching up to calc 1 (nothing higher) for years. I have tutored everything my school offered up to master's level (years ago) and have helped others get their masters in mathematics as well.
I was initially an engineering major. I took only 3 semesters of physics (physics I with calc, physics II with calc, physics III or also known as modern physics). I admit I don't specialize in theoretical physics (quantum mechanics, black holes, etc). I know the basics though as I did a lot of reading on the subjects. But never took a formal class on them.
But I'm well seasoned in Newtonian physics.
From my understanding, black hole theory is still theoretical. In some cases, we have more than one theory explaining certain things about them. In other words, scientists don't agree or still are not very sure about some things. There is a lot man doesn't know as they are still very mysterious.
Originally posted by Astner
This is inaccurate. The "size," whether you want to define it as the reach of the event horizon or the ergosphere only depends on its mass and angular momentum.The singularity that's extended from a point to a closed curve with angular momentum, which elongates the event horizon (because it's within a mass-dependent proximity to the singularity) and displaces the ergosphere. Increased charge, however doesn't affect either.
However the "inner" Cauchy horizon is affected by the charge of the black hole, which, when overlapping with the event horizon creates an exposed singularity.
with
and
Clearly, the location of both horizons depends on both the mass M and charge Q. The location of the outer horizon is independent of charge only if you express it in terms of the "irreducible mass" of the black hole (which is a different thing from its "mass"😉. I'm not an expert in Kerr-Newman black holes but I'd expect the same to be true there. When you speak of "mass", are you thinking of "irreducible mass" instead?
Not that this is a big deal regarding the argument. A naked singularity can occur (mathematically speaking, at least) in a pure Reissner–Nordström space-time as well, no angular momentum is required.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTWSo you admit to trolling by making up shit that I stated I can be bullseye after a rear of practice.
Says the guy who couldn't even comprehend his own scan? 😱And yet everyone laughed at you and keeps mocking you for it.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=16740608#post16740608
I guess they didn't understand you, either? 😉
You should get cattleprodded to death, you moron.
When I clearly stated that given I can produce the velocities Bullseye can achieve that I can perform that same PARTICULAR feat in less than a year of practice. Hence proving that particular feat wasn't humanly impossible (other than the velocity).
And you should burn in hell for a very long time for just calling someone that is way smarter than you a moron.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
https://imgur.com/a/lTV79cH
It's certainly implied that Superman technically has the strength to move stars, even if he can't necessarily interact with them in such a manner.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Different writer. The writer confirmed that Superman smothered its gravity with his fist.
"Or something like that" he doesnt know how he wants to portray it himself
😂
That's a "I mean I guess you can look at it like that, or something" 🤦🏾‍♂️ and if the writer ISNT sure himself, that's rough on all fronts.
