| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Douglas Eagleson" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2005 06:06:13 PM |
| Object: |
A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 5 |
A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 5
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
(a binary xor, bombe is disclosed)
(A bombe is a universal cracking engine in this instance.)
A weapon is the topic of today's
statement.
A certain diagram to display
the weapon is unnecessary because
as a new invention the word is
sufficient to communicate the
nice originality.
I have designed small weapons
and made diagrams to communicate.
And in those cases the originality
was the same.
But the reader is supposed to
mature and recognize the invention
when it is disclosed in words.
When I invent weapons I consider it
an outlet for frustration. I
live in the abstract communicator world
of the artist and live here near
Washington DC USA.
A predicate thinker's world is the
nations capital. A world which
think's Fermat Last Theory is able
to be proven without a change
in Topology.
A change like the kind found in
Harry Potter would be the necessary
leve of altered topology.
My new weapon is a kind of
device to d o what weapons
define. They define death
at the hands of the user.
And as a certain kind of philosopher,
I have to admit to the solution
to the moral dilemma is self-defense.
A straight bar of steel is to
be applied. A certain kind of
rifle is this invention.
A hole has been drilled in the
center like the common rifle
barrel.
Making the square sided barrel.
A student of modern firearms
will remember the square sided
image of the 45 automatic.
And now a-days almost all the
hand held firearms are of the
square image.
So my invention appears a design
kind.
A square rifle.
Normally my inventions are a little
more profound.
And this square image is then to
be analogy. And the rifle is
to be the weight applied.
And the meaning of invention becomes
the efficient Class IV firearms.
A weight applied squarely is to
always maximize the force.
And bullets are no different.
A square shot means a good
shot.
And my design of squareness is to
remind the shooter to always
shoot square.
Making the design provide a
truely superior performance in
reality.
A certain kind of unpredictability
is defined.
A pattern causes the effect
on the thinker and thence
the shooter.
A good aiming aid is apparently
the whole weapon design.
A large frame with a small
barrel was observed.
And as the inventor of the
aimable frame, I claim all
such frames superior to
nonaimable frames.
A certain NATO light rifle
design fails to be a modern
weapon as a result.
A square Glock is aimable
using the square frame.
And so my design is defined
and my claim is held
with merit because of the
modern handheld
frame's existence.
Making square framed shoulder
arms now the standard of performance.
A nice lightweight polycarbonate
frame to cover the long
barrel.
And so the analogy was to
be defined as the simple
thinker's necessity.
A square frame to cause the
square shot is a geometric
analogy to be desired as
an emotionaly good
shot.
Meaning the square frame for
the square hit is to be
a feel good sighting.
And here feel good means
superior performance at
the use of the modern
shouldered rifle.
A rather trivial design
discovery is discussed and
the reader is to now consider
the analogy applied elsewhere.
And in philosophy the weapon
is replacable.
And here the abstract realm
is opened to pondering.
Making the true topic now
defined. A realm of
applied theory is placed in
relation to the realm of
the particluar theory.
A small theory of squareness
was defined as the cause
to the larger theory.
Analogy is exactly this
powerful of a thinking aid.
A perfect analogy is to be
learned as desireable.
An searching for the realm
appears the philosopher's
kind.
Abstract analogy is defined
in this example.
And a student is then to
be left with the task of
discovery in perfect
analogy.
What abstract design is to
be invented is up to the
reader.
A good student will learn
to discover the simple thinker
relation itself and define it
correctly.
Making this discourse the
correct form for my mentor.
Remember three objective's
are to be met with this single
discourse of the true
philosopher in common
competition.
A simple thinker relation
is findable in design itself.
It is common.
A flexible belt escalator
is possible when the
relation is inverted and
applied.
What nonsquare step designs
exist that may be of otherwise
superior benefit.
And a belt of shallow angle
is superior for many
safety reasons.
And so the inverted example
is given.
A simple thinker was defined
as the designer. And the
nonsquareness of the belt
was placed in relation to
the squareness of the
realm of the escalator.
Making the simple thinker,
a well usable form when given
proper introduction by a good
student.
Thus ends the student's work
in this discourse and the
common reader's content is to
discuss and demonstrate
the level of philosophical
competition.
A common reader is to never
be expected to actualy
apply the task of the mentor
to example.
And of course the philosopher
in competition must use the beginning
of this discourse to another larger
purpose.
A philosopher quite ablely ponders
the realm of all realms.
And the words chosen for the discourse
to this point were to effect
this larger insight.
A kind of thinker amoung all
kinds was the larger topic.
And I seek to demonstrate to
the common reader the realm
of the philosophical lind of
thinker.
And so the actual benefit of
analogy is to apply the
simple thinker relation
anywhere.
A common simple thinker
and reader is to learn of the
forsight given to everyword
of the statement.
I have invented in relation
to the simple thinker relation already
discussed and have used
the discourse to introduce
myself as a philosopher.
Yes, philosophers delight
in the bare relation and its
discussion.
And to demonstrate a capacity
to communicate the intricate
form is a true philosopher.
And my design invention is
to be of the level of insight
worthy.
I design real weapons.
A simple relation altered
on the exact place of the earth
will cause the new weapon.
A mantrap using the bent tree
branch is the example.
And so the search was made
and the meaning of discovery in the
retrospect is to be displayed
as originally claimed.
An invention is a single relation.
My analogy is the altered thinking
caused by the single relation.
And so as the common reader to
anticipate the disclosure of invention
in both definition and example,
a certain feeling is to be
remembered.
A feeling to be felt on the
understanding of a single relation
to possibly change the world.
A true discovery was claimed for
a real kind of weapon.
So the discovery is still hidden
and the analogy of its exact
cause is known to the common
reader.
Yes, my mentor is to also
be the common reader this time.
One sentence will convey
a possibly momentous discovery.
And so the meaning of competition
as a level is the true discovery.
I have truely discovered and disclosed
many weapons. From nuclear
designs to rifles.
And this is but one more.
And here is the latest
disclosesure.
"A bit altered to cause the
state change only and a
state is used in analogy
only."
A cpu is altered to only
effect the design.
And the common reader may feel
let down. It is a cryptographic
weapon.
A design where the algorithm is
symboless.
And so the meaning of momentous
is left for the proper disclosure.
How the symbol is used in the
algorithm and the text to be
hidden as a subject realm is quit
profoundly large.
Making the single relation disclosure
feel empty for lack of knowledge
of the realm.
A cpu and the compiler work
to allow the relationship
of symbol to cause of state.
And my cpu algorithm's only.
A programmable logic array
is the common example not applied
correctly.
No compiler cpu's are my invention.
And examination of the realm
in accidental usage reveals
a lack of proper formulation.
A single word, hidden, is
represented to the cpu
input and a single output
is obtained.
And here the word as the
level of voltage on the array
is found not general enough.
A kind of input is allowed
where the shape causes the
state.
Making the shape of the
binary word in general
the invention's implication.
I write now to disclose as
a philosopher applying the
relation.
A common reader must bear-with the
philosopher.
And here the eveness is to be
the shape defined for all binary
words.
A pair of low states or the high state
followed by the low state defines
the even.
And so the word is then to be
given the form presented to
the logic gate.
Even is always high.
And odd is always low.
Yes, this is an XOR bombe.
And so each enchiphered word
is to be common computer
decoded to the new word
set.
And then presented to the
common XOR logic gated
sytem.
A certain applied example
is defined.
A kind of algorithm only cpu.
Mr. Turing and others
invented the bombe to assist
decrytption.
And they never made one for the
modern cpu.
A word placed on the invention's
cpu is to cause the new word.
And the new word inverted and
recoded to binary shall be
either unhashed or hidden
only by the simple password
xor'd.
And the method of scientific
logic gate inference
is another single relation
to transform the common logic
gate to the new gate.
Once more the single relation
of disclosure is encountered.
"An encoding was selected
to cause all computer algotithms
to be a set of xors."
A set of xor's inferred to
cause the unhashing is the trivial
kind of inference.
A set of words in binary represented
by gates makes the algorithm.
A word as the block to be decrpyted
is able to be made with the
encoded inputs.
Making the relation of the encoded
states to the word as the set of
inputs the actual discovery.
A set of two divisor inputs is
to represent a single binary
state. Meaning the encoded
bombe code is transformed to
the state of the binary by the
special gate design.
____********________
*________
____ *________
*________
********
Two inputs are to recode
only to the four or double
state binary representation.
Making the set of xor's gate
outputs the only question.
A combiation of two input
xor gates placed on the right
hand side of the recoder gate
will always bombe.
Meaning the hash is removed or
the password is the only
question.
And so the relation of
the compiler to the
combination of xor gates is
the last disclosure.
The common reader needs
to get the hint that the
common computer was logically
inverted and transformed.
Transformed to make a weapon example.
A decoded symbol to cause
the cpu state change is
a single relation.
And the word hashed or
enciphred is a set of binary
states.
Encode each word.
And make the set of gates
a proper set of common
either xor or not-xor gates.
A travel through state
gate is defined to allow
the agorithm to have the
logic gate states exist
in simple geometric
relation to the word set
of the cpu.
A simple thinker relation
is defined by the use of the
travel-thru or null gate.
A one for one binary state
encoded simply uses
the original gate reversed.
Making the set of encoding
and decoding a matter of the length.
And so each algorithm is found to have
a unique length.
And inference is possible by
examining the primary
register of the algorithm.
An algorithm using more than one
register is to always at
some point have the second register
operated by the first.
Or vice-versa.
Implying that all operations of
a class are useless.
Meaning that operations on the
independent variable applied
to transform the primary
register are irrelevent.
It is akin to simple constant selection.
And so the xor input gate is
defined as the encoder decoder
gate.
A simple logic to infer.
And all encrpytion is now
subjectable to the xor bombe.
As a student, I believe that
the transform of the travel thru
gate to the inverted input
is suitable.
And the invention of the
xor bombe is clearly a weapon
suitable.
.
|
|
| User: "Robert Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 5 |
16 Aug 2005 08:29:17 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
suitable.
You forgot to take your meds again.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 5 |
15 Aug 2005 07:32:46 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
[snip 600 lines or crap]
As a student, I believe that
the transform of the travel thru
gate to the inverted input
is suitable.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
We've got your "inverted input" right here, prolix idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 5 |
15 Aug 2005 09:40:12 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4301342E.FEDB0EDE@hate.spam.net...
| Douglas Eagleson wrote:
| [snip 600 lines or crap]
Ok, I'll crap.
Phuckwit.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 5 |
16 Aug 2005 11:21:46 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4301342E.FEDB0EDE@hate.spam.net...
| Douglas Eagleson wrote:
| [snip 600 lines or crap]
Ok, I'll crap.
Phuckwit.
Androcles.
Res ipsa loquitur. (Hey stooopid Androcles - you've lost the game
again. Get a Project Head Start slum bunny to explain it to you.
Maybe a Darkie can start you out with doing The Threes.)
As a student, I believe that
the transform of the travel thru
gate to the inverted input
is suitable.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
We've got your "inverted input" right here, prolix idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 5 |
16 Aug 2005 05:24:24 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4302129A.5EFD66ED@hate.spam.net...
| Res ipsa loquitur. (Hey stooopid Androcles - you've lost the game
| again.
What game was that, phuckwit?
Let's see if you know any high school algebra.
Given:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Need a reference, phuckwit? No need, you've quoted it yourself before,
stoooopid.
Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:
tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Synchronize clocks at t = 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Taking coordinate x' as infinitessimally small, as he says,
you not quite realizing x' is both a coordinate and a distance,
he does that to differentiate, so we leave the distance alone,
dx/dt = x/t anyway with a constant velocity.
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v))
Removing the superflous coordinates, all zero:
tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x'/(c-v))
Setting the time a = x'/(c-v) and b =x'/(c+v) for clarity
tau(a+b) = 2*tau(a)
Renaming tau as f,
f(a+b) = 2f(a) or
½f(a+b) = f(a)
Now tell me that's a linear function, a > b.
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.
In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.
In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.
In the fourth place you've been had! (and not by me either)
Hahahahahahaha!!
Stoopid Schwartz is a phuckwit and she's been had!
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
