Monday, September 27, 2010

The art of the Insult -Teucer

Teucer is perhaps the most remarkable person that i have engaged over the internet. So much so, that a community named Teucer and friends made by him is actually a sensible idea. I would be backing up some of my picks from his discussions.

In the present case, he discusses The art of the Insult as an art should be discussed:


showing 1-6 of 6 

22/09/2006

Teucer

The art of the Insult

.

More and more I am seeing people who just do not have the ability to appreciate the insult as a form of art. These poor folks just don't seem to understand the fact that the creation of a proper insult is a fine art that requires patience and creativity, instead they take the lazy way out with such pathetic attempts as "You're an ignorant mother-fucker!"

To combat this trend I have decided to initiate a set of guidlines to enable people to be more effective at using insults.

22/09/2006

Teucer

Rule One

Keep an eye on the objective of the insult.

Usually the objective is to make it known that you are superior to the recipient in some way. Lets look at a basic insult:

You are a mother-fucker!

As you can see by the example, the insult falls short of establishing your superiority because of it's very crudeness and lack of imagination.

By lowering the tone slightly and expanding on the basic premis this insult can become much more effective:

You are just upset because your mother told you my cock taste better than yours.

See? Your superiority is established because while it is socially acceptable for you to have sexual relations with his mother, his doing so constitutes incest which is not acceptable behavior. You have also made it plain that even his immediate family finds you superior to him in some way.

We can go further by adding something that highlights your superiority while also highlighting his inferiority. This is easily done by appearing to be willing to help him overcome his shortcomings.

You are just upset because your mother told you my cock taste better than yours. Perhaps if you bathe more often this wouldn't be an issue.

22/09/2006

Teucer

Rule Two

Originality counts.

When engaged in a contest of insults, more is accomplished by originality than anything else. You should avoid insults that have been used so often they have lost effectiveness and instead find new ways to bring the same point across. Compare "You bastard!"with something along the lines of "I was going to marry your sister, but your family objected once they found out my parents were married."

Addressing a third person is acceptable if it furthers this goal. If you are a female you could always try something along the lines of: "I was going to marry (recipient) but the wedding was called off when his family discovered I was a virgin. They stated, 'If she ain't good enough for her family, she ain't good enough for ours!'"

22/09/2006

Teucer

Rule Three

Play the audience

Especially in a public forum it is important to realise that you are playing to an audience. For this reason it should be at the forefront of your mind to not only insult the intended recipient, but to entertain the audience as well. Keeping the tone light and helpful goes a long way towards this goal as you can subtly (or not-so-subtly) hint that you are astonished by the reaction of the recipient. After all you are only trying to be helpful in a completely rational manner. Watch what I mean with this example:

"You mother-fucker!"

"Sir, are you upset because your mother informed you she thought my cock tasted better than yours? Perhaps if you would bathe more often this would no longer be a problem.

"Leave my mother out of this, asshole!"

"Sir, there is no reason to get upset, I'm only trying to help. I already apologised for talking her into shaving her back, what more do you wish me to do?"

"That's it, I'm gonna hunt you down and wring your scrawney little neck!"

"Sir, there is no reason to get personal here. I have already decided to end it with your mother. Although she is amazingly imaginative in bed, your mother has said that she no longer feels comfortable in our menage a trois and issued an ultimatum. I will be restricting my involvement in your family to your sister in the future."


As you can see, by playing to the audience itself instead of responding to the over-used and ineffective insults of the other party, you will keep the attentionm of any observers while at the same time highlighting the ineffectiveness of the recipients insult skills.

22/09/2006

Teucer

Rule Four

Keep calm.

Remember that the entire point of engaging in a contest of skills is not only to look superior, but to make the recipient lose his temper. Once someone loses their temper they become much less able to think creatively and intelligently.

If you lose your temper it is probably best to walk away than to continue the contest. If you continue it becomes easier and easier for the opponent to appear superior. You can always return later and continue the contest after calming down.

22/09/2006

Teucer

Here's one of my favorites.

There is a female poster on another forum that will probably get this one soon. It has a pretty good tone and no profanity is used at all.

Dearest (insert female moniker here),

Obviously you are still upset with me. As I have already explained what happened I am at a loss for why this is, but perhaps a more thorough apology is in order.

As I explained at the bar where we met, I was pretty drunk and tired when you invited me back to your place to show me how flexible you were. The fact that I fell asleep while you were on top of me really shouldn't be construed as a criticism of your romantic abilities.

As you recall, I also informed you that I was an international secret agent. The fact that I never called you afterwords has nothing to do with your excessive body hair or inadequate personal hygene. As I was leaving your home that morning (and I would like to point out here that I was nice enough not to wake you) I noticed a KGB assination team staked out across the street. It was simply too dangerous for me to contact you any earlier.

I also wish to apoligize for your brush with the Health Department. I was required by company regulations to report any sexual activity and you were determined to be the individual I contracted that particular disease from. I can't be blamed for everything, however, you should have known that engaging in carnal knowledge with your dog was illegal. If you had had the foresight to close your curtains beforehand they never would have witnessed you in that embarrassing and illegal position. Sorry I couldn't post your bail, but I was engaged in a rather delicate operation at the time. I have made inquiries into getting "Fido" returned to you, but it doesn't look promising at the moment.

As far as your sister is concerned, perhaps you didn't realize that she was an IRA operative and I wasn't actually getting romantically involved. I was using a well established interrogation technique to "pump" her for information.

My Sincere Apologies,

Teucer

Wagner on "Why is the speed of light the same in every frame?"

While i prefer the derivation for speed of light from Maxwell's equations, Wagner finds alternatives to vector calculus in this TPL entry. Note that the backup here is limited only to what i thought was relevant:


showing 1-2 of 2 

20/01/2007

RengaW

Why is the speed of light the same in every frame?

This question was asked in the thread

SPEED OF LIGHT???
http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=128&tid=2510828601996253174

and I gave Landau's argument from The Classical Theory of Fields.

30/03/2007

RengaW



From the first link:

showing 1-10 of 45 

19/01/2007

Deepak

er....im not that good at relativity....so i dont know whether this question is a valid one or not....
"how is speed of light a constant in all frames of reference....???"
even though i read quite a bit abt the experimental proofs regarding
the speed of light being constant...i never found an article which describes why it is so...is it just sumthin dat cant be explained yet???
guys please tell ur views..........

19/01/2007

Vitor Abel

yes, make senses

20/01/2007

RengaW

Like everything else in physics, this is ultimately an experimental issue so, yes, "nature wants it that way." But here's an argument why the speed of light must be the same in every reference frame.

Let me start with a more fundamental experimental fact: it's an experimental fact that all interactions propagate with a finite speed.

(By "interaction", I mean a "means of exchanging information.")

The statement in blue above doesn't mean that all interactions propagate, necessarily, with the same speed. It could be, for example, that gravity propagated at one speed and light propagated with another. (That isn't the case, however. More on this at the end.)

It also doesn't mean that they all propagate at a constant speed. For example, the speed of sound in a gas depends on the kind of gas, as well as on its pressure and on its density. Light propagates in a optically transparent medium with a speed that depends on the medium's index of refraction.

What it does mean is that there is a maximum speed of propagation for each interaction. And since we're not assuming that all interactions have the same maximum speed, we can rank the different interactions in ascending order of their maximum speeds. Let's call the largest of those maximum speeds, C. Thus, C is the ultimate barrier, the maximum speed of propagation of any interaction.

Ok, so now imagine that Alice and Bob, at rest with respect to one another, exchange some information using the interaction that has C for its maximum speed. More specifically, imagine that Alice is the sender and Bob is the recipient. Now imagine that Charlie and Debbie are at rest inside a train moving with speed v, in the direction from Bob to Alice.

20/01/2007

RengaW

To them, inside the train, the signal sent from Alice to Bob would seem to travel at a speed (C+v) and, therefore, would move between Charlie and Debbie at a speed larger than C. But that contradicts the experimental fact that no signal can propagate faster than C, since C is the largest of all the maximum speeds of propagation.

Therefore, we must conclude that the signal also travels at speed C with respect to Charlie and Debbie, that is, the largest of all the maximum speeds of propagation must be the same in every reference frame. (Here I used two such frames: one, where Alice and Bob are, and another, where Charlie and Debbie are.)

Now, as it happens, it's also an experimental fact that the maximum speeds of propagation of every known interaction are all the same.And since light moves with a maximum speed of c, we conclude that C is, in fact, c. Thus, for instance, gravitational waves also propagate (in vacuum) at the speed of light in vacuum, c.

And that is the reason why the speed of light in vacuum must have the same value in all reference frames.

Of course, this is not how Einstein came up with his postulate that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. He reached this conclusion by analyzing the details of how electromagnetic phenomena behave in different inertial frames. In a way he was lucky, because if it was the case that different interactions had different maximum speeds, it could have been the case that light was not the fastest, in which case his postulate would have been wrong. As it happens, all interactions do have the same maximum speed and so it was ok for him to speak of the speed of light.

The entire argument I gave above also shows that relativity really has nothing to do with light, specifically. Relativity has to do with exchanging information, be it by means of light signals or anything else. That's why relativity is such a fundamental part of physics.

20/01/2007

RengaW

By the way, as much as I'd love to take credit for coming up with this argument, I didn't come up with it. The essence of the argument has been described in at least one book, which is where I learned of it: Landau's The Classical Theory of Fields.

I merely added Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Debbie into the mix, to make the argument easier to understand.

20/01/2007

Arun

@Deepu

Relative motion is between moving frames........not between a frame and light

20/01/2007

Arun

light shouldnt be treated as a frame

24/07/2008

Rakesh

Coming back to "Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Debbie "

Signals sent from Alice takes a finite time to reach Bob with a velocity C. And logically Charlie, and Debbie should percieve that signal to be C+ v. Which of course according to the theory they are not. The perceptions of the velocity of signals by Alice and Bob is C and they think that Charlie, and Debbie must be perceiving it to be 'C+v'.

But the fact is that the later two are percieving the velocity in their frame as to be same as the former two are percieving it in their frame.

This apparent paradox can ONLY happen if the perception of time is altered for Charlie, and Debbie in such a way that a velocity of C+v is percieved as being C only to them in their frame .

So we can say that this happens because diffrent perceptions of time in diffrent frames.

25/07/2008

Utkarsh

With the solution given by RengaW, I discovered one loop hole. Let me explain.

Consider this example.

A car is moving on Highway at the Speed of 200 km/hr. Now the scene is of the night. So turns on the Headlights.

Now according to Sir Newton, the speed of light would be 3 00 003.35 km/s.
(200 km/hr = 3.35 km/s and Speed of light = c + 3.35 km/s).

But on measuring (practically) the speed of light it is found to be 3 00 000 km/s and not 3 00 003.35 km/s. Why? Here comes the explanation.

Consider a person that is standing on Highway watching this Car traveling at 200 km/hr. Now also consider that the car is to cross the person after some time. Now the driver and the stationary person on the highway both start their stopwatches at the same time to an accuracy of 1 picosecond.

When the car will cross the person, both the people stop their stopwatches at the same instant. Suppose the reading of the stopwatch in the hands of the stationary person is 10 s, the reading of the stopwatch of the driver would be say 9.9999998 s. (You did not mention this my dear RengaW). Thus the time became slow for the person in the car.

Now if the car would have been stationary, the light would have traveled 3 00 000 km/s. But the car is traveling at 200 km/hr. So the distance traveled by light in 1 second is the total of the following:

Distance traveled by light in 9.9999998 + 3.35. This would total up to exactly the speed of light as measured from the stationary frame of reference (just to say because absolutely no frame of reference is STATIONARY.)

So the speed of light remains constant!
Some replies on this page have been deleted or are under review.



The second link deals with some of the doubt clearing that occurred subsequently:

showing 1-10 of 17 

29/03/2007

Gururaj

What is the ultimate speed

Hi, I always have this doubt:
What is the ultimate speed? Is it limited by the speed of Light in vaccum or is it 3*10^8 m/s?

I want to know if the utimate speed achievable is 3*10^8 m/s and light happens to have that speed or is it that the utimate speed barrier is the speed of light, whatever it might be(and in our universe, it just happens to be 3*10^8 m/s)?

29/03/2007

Amar

it is the speed of light itself

the ultimate speed in this universe is the speed at which electromagnetic radiation propagates through vacuum.

as u all must be knowing, even if we remove all the matter in a given space, and also remove the heat energy in that space by cooling it, it is impossible to eliminate the electromagnetic radiation that prevades through it.

29/03/2007

Gururaj

What is the meaning of All pervading electromagnetic radiation? EM radiation can travel without any medium, so it can travel even if there is nothing, but that doesnt make it all pervading...

Unless there is a source of EM radiation, how do we get it?

29/03/2007

RengaW

as u all must be knowing, even if we remove all the matter in a given space, and also remove the heat energy in that space by cooling it, it is impossible to eliminate the electromagnetic radiation that prevades through it.

The above is not the reason why the correct answer is the speed of light itself. Moreover, as you must be knowing from reading the community guidelines, Amar, the use of sms is not acceptable in Physics II.

To understand why the ultimate speed is the speed of light, refer to the following thread:

Why is the speed of light the same in every frame?
http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=5545399&tid=2510854487770746073

30/03/2007

Ganesh ~

http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=128&tid=2510828601996253174
You explained in this forum why light travels with a constant speed with respect to all frames of reference by referring to peak speed of interactions. I've a silly doubt regarding that.
Consider the double slit experiment. If two waves of light are emitted from two slits with the same phase,(let's not enter into 'particle-wave duality" duel here), then according to relativity(and electromagnetic field theory) if light travels at the same speed of 3*10^8 m/s regardless of the speed of motion of the observer, then one wave emitted from one of the slits should travel at a speed of 3*10^8m/s with respect to the other wave(consider this wave as an observer). so in that case, one wave would've reached the screen before the other had managed to. and hence no question of interference. But the reality is the vice-versa. We would get a interference fringe in that case experimentally. So where had i gone wrong. Sorry if my question is so fundamental.

30/03/2007

MegaGoat

There is a mistake in your argument that the MegaGoat can perceive. The other wave cannot be the observer, because a frame of reference cannot be attached to it. Nothing travels at 'c'. So the observer can't. The speed of one ray of light with respect to another is not a physically meaningful term.



____________________________
Blahahahahahahahahaha

30/03/2007

Ї∫∏ặ...JOKER-

well, as the thread is closely related to speed of light, i rather wanted to post my question here instead of starting a new thread.
hope it doesn't violate any guidelines:

why does light travel at c=2999792458 m/s and not some other value?
it may sound stupid, but i couldn't figure it out.

30/03/2007

RengaW

This is where your argument is flawed:

then one wave emitted from one of the slits should travel at a speed of 3*10^8m/s with respect to the other wave(consider this wave as an observer).

EM waves (or, in the parlance of QED, photons) are not physically realizable reference frames. In other words, you cannot attach a reference frame to a photon, which is to say, you can never be at rest with respect to a photon. Thus, you cannot make a statement such as "consider the wave as an observer."

That's because a reference frame is not an abstract concept. A reference frame is actually an array of metersticks and properly synchronized clocks, positioned at every point in space.

To understand this is a little better, consider what it means to say "consider X to be an observer" where X is something (a person, a planet, a particle, whatever). What it means is that we have an array of clocks and metersticks (the reference frame) momentarily or permanently at rest with respect to the observer in question (X). For that to happen, the whole array of clocks and metersticks have to be moving momentarily or permanently with the same velocity as X itself.

But no massive object can move at the speed of light, so we conclude that one cannot have a reference frame momentarily or permanently at rest with respect to a photon. In other words, we cannot attach a reference frame to a photon - the photon is not a valid observer.

30/03/2007

RengaW

Nothing travels at 'c'.

Light does. And so do any zero-mass particles.

30/03/2007

RengaW

why does light travel at c=2999792458 m/s and not some other value?

That's a question for which we do not have an answer yet. No current theory can predict or explain the value of fundamental constants such as c, Planck's constant h, the gravitational constant G, and others.

I have to say, though, that the actual numerical value is irrelevant. In fact, in particle physics, where particles often move at speeds close to the speed of light, it's common to use a system of units where c has the value 1, that is, c = 1.

This change of values is possible because c, being the value of a speed, has units. c is 2999792458 m/s and also 1 light-year/year.

The only meaningful way to refer to the values of fundamental constants is by means of combinations of them having no units - the so-called dimensionless constants.

For example, the fine-structure constant <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant> is a combination of fundamental constants that has no units whatsoever. Its value is approximately 1/137 no matter what system of units you choose.

Thus, your question and my answer should both be reformulated in terms of fundamental dimensionless constants. For instance, "why does the fine-structure constant have the value 1/137 and not something else?" and the answer would be "we don't know; there is currently no theory that can predict its value from first principles."