Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below jonny jacked
New member
Thats like 2 years old. Once more and you'll get the boot right out of EF.
Fonz
Fonz
Lady going the DNP route
- Thread starter 2ncourage
- Start date
- Status
S
satchboogie
Guest
lets take it easy on fonz people.
after all, he's only tryina help.
perhaps, at times, his comments are harsh. but thats only because he has to deal with dozens of pm's everyday from newbies asking him stupid questions. i can, somehow, relate.
the man still shows a wealth of knowledge and is an asset to the boards.
after all, he's only tryina help.
perhaps, at times, his comments are harsh. but thats only because he has to deal with dozens of pm's everyday from newbies asking him stupid questions. i can, somehow, relate.
the man still shows a wealth of knowledge and is an asset to the boards.
x_muscle said:
God, this is like the attack of the ants....lol I'll re-post what I posted at SBI you singularly stupid creature.
I will explain the concept of optics to you, and hopefully your little amoeba-sized brain can comprehend this.....and take this back to your little ____________ minions...because I pity their stupidity. They re-inforce the concept of the STUPID and RETARDED bodybuilder.
My bathroom has a walk-in closet(That hs mirrors on its outer surface) directly in front of the wash basin, which itself has a rectangular mirror on top of it.
]
]
]
] ++ ..(1) ..(2) Fonz | Walk-in closet mirrors
] ++
]
]
]
]
]
(Mirrors)
Wash Basin
Its a relatively simple optics problem. BTw, the mirrors have both reflective surfaces not refractive, therefore both have a specific focal point length...indicated by the sign ".." in the quasi-diagram above. ..(1) is the focal length of the wash basin mirrors, and the ..(2) sign is the focal length of the Walk-in closet mirrors. The camera is represented by the "++" sign.
++
OK...once the beam of light shoots out of the camera it hits me(Fonz) and is dispersed around me as well....light travels in a relative circle from the camera(Well.....depends on your viewer...some are smaller than others). Then as the picture is formed on the camera from the first light beam, the light that was dispersed around me is reflected and diffracted back towards me bounced off the walk-in closet mirror(represented by "|". This light then hits the Wash basin mirror(represented by "[" and is captured by the camera as an after-image. Remember that the camera is pointed to the Walk-in closet mirror, so any light hitting the Wash Basin mirror would be seen in the Walk-in closet mirror.
Thats how easy it is to explain, but I guess its above the heads of the genuises(LOL) of ____________........haha
This is Fonz beating you neaderthals over the head YET AGAIN with his intelligence.
Now shut up....and just go crawl back under whatever rock you came from.
Fonz
GoldenDelicious
New member
WHY DONT YOU RESPOND TO ME, FONZ? A LITTLE OUT OF YOUR DEPTH?
please, if you dont want to talk pharmacology, at least you could expand a little more about light moving in "a relative circle"
and you dare quote "NASA Engineer" as your occupation?
please, if you dont want to talk pharmacology, at least you could expand a little more about light moving in "a relative circle"
and you dare quote "NASA Engineer" as your occupation?
GoldenDelicious said:
Thats a joke in case you missed it...you mumbling troglodyte.
I have a BSc + MEng, working on my 2nd MEng right now, then once I get that(4 years), my PH. D(3 years)....then I can apply to NASA. Hence why I put "NASA Engineer"....... duh
So don't even attempt to patronize me, because my educational level far exceeds your undergrad degree in pharmacology(or whatever).
And I think the one out of his depth is very much you, in oh a veritable panoply of ways.
Fonz
GoldenDelicious
New member
Fonz said:
mumbling troglodyte....wow, i have to say, that is the first time i have been called that. usually remarks about my command of the engish language go along the lines of "exceptional" and "outstanding". this is in line with my scoring in the top quarter percentile during my college english classes. as well as my scoring in the top percentile overall achievement (nationally)
the only joke here, fonz (apart from you) is your pathetic belief that people actually believe your infantile fabrications.
and by the way...dont think that i dont realise that the only way you know what the word troglodyte means is through watching "studio 54"
Fonz said:
of course you do. which is why you stated that light travels in a circular manner. dont think that i dont pull my weight in physics either (top percentile nationally mean anything to you....again?). your misuse of the words "dispersed" and "diffracted" in the context of your pathetic attempt to explain the images produced in a system with two opposing mirrors, on top of your previous "light bending" theory (ROFL!!!) sort of cast a seedy light over your claims, dont you think?
Fonz said:
ROFL!!!! please explain to me how your supposed "Education" (which mustnt have included an english component) "far exceeds" my own.
humility is a virtue fonz. the endless propogation of your "superiority" through your posts only exposes you further. you exemplify the true meaning of the word "pathetic". look it up. im fairly sure you think you know what the word means, but dont.
Fonz said:
why dont you, oh, expand on that "panoply" fonz.
without your thesaurus or cheesy quotes this time.
pathetic pathetic pathetic
GoldenDelicious
New member
anyway, for those of you actually paying attention to fonz's "advice" pertaining to the judicial, rational use of DNP, send me a pm and ill get you in touch with a salt distributor. youll need it.
GoldenDelicious
New member
youre meant to take the advice with salt. not the drug.
lol sometimes...lol
lol sometimes...lol
So you really believe its that dangerous? Ive been on it about 2 weeks now and im doing fine, minus the heat and lethargy...... From what ive read, it isnt actually that hard on the liver and kidneys and isnt carcenogenic, which are the three most important factors. I dont go over 400mg/day either....
GoldenDelicious
New member
bigrand said:
it can be, yes
many of the problems are made much much worse because it is supplied by people who cannot be trusted to dose it correctly. i know for a fact that an inexperienced/untrained person can stuff doses up by a factor of 10 when they are making capsules
this drug has the potential to kill you even at the right dose
if you were in a clinic supervised by doctors etc etc i can see that the drug is useful...but to wade into using it at high doses with unknow quality/quantity and in a form that is totally different from the sodium salt used in the past...youre asking for trouble
its a hard enough decision without people like fonz treating it like its skittles
cheers
One time George Spellwin remarked on a thread that was getting off topic that one "should start a new thread to discuss butt plugs and such." I believe the advice applies with full force here. If people want to have a flame war, then go to chat, or another board entirely. None of this is helping with someones use of DNP.
Fonz has been a valuable member here and elsewhere for years and knows more than most here ever will. So lets show some respect before slinging personal attacks.
Fonz has been a valuable member here and elsewhere for years and knows more than most here ever will. So lets show some respect before slinging personal attacks.
variation
New member
Wow, Goldendelicious.. To think for someone that brags about his skills in the English language, you could atleast use proper grammar and spelling in the same post.
It made me laugh, picking out all the mistakes while reading it.
2ncourage, What's up, how are you making out?
It made me laugh, picking out all the mistakes while reading it.
2ncourage, What's up, how are you making out?
"Results from one oral study in mice indicated no tumor formation occurred after six months exposure, and in another study results indicated 2,4-dinitrophenol did not promote tumor development in mice. The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the U.S. EPA"
Shitty thing is, there are no real studies on its carcenogenity. The few test on animals showed NO mutations and other than that, we have the AMES and a few others that i will have to dig up.
Shitty thing is, there are no real studies on its carcenogenity. The few test on animals showed NO mutations and other than that, we have the AMES and a few others that i will have to dig up.
GoldenDelicious
New member
variation said:
push off, i was in a hurry
besides, it was in response to fonz attacking the other guyJuicePimp said:
knowing more than "most" is no excuse to behave the way he does. besides his knowledge is deficient on this topic.
furthermore, it is inevitably fonz who slings the personal attacks. what do you want members to do, cringe with their tails between their legs if the mighty moderators speak? please.
JuicePimp said:
incorrect.
the member who started this thread made it clear that she valued fonz's opinion above all others. her misconception should be adressed before she gives fonz's opinions too much weight.
variation
New member
lol, bigrand.. settle down bro... Don't go all anxiety here. 
Until we see some good evidence, or probably circumstances via some relative mechanism linking it to cancer, we can't really just say it must be, So I guess it's really up to you whether you wish to continue with it, because nearly nothing has been analyzed so finely in this world.
It's your choice.
Don't go all anxiety here. Until we see some good evidence, or probably circumstances via some relative mechanism linking it to cancer, we can't really just say it must be, So I guess it's really up to you whether you wish to continue with it, because nearly nothing has been analyzed so finely in this world.
It's your choice.
GoldenDelicious
New member
you shouldnt be so anxious bigrand... you know youll die of acute toxicity before the cancer gets you
GoldenDelicious said:
Actually, i learned English at Oxford, UK. And I'm not kidding there either.And since I'm in the mood to teach a very loud and obnoxious person a lesson, I am going to do so.
My degrees are In Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Engineering just in case you're wondering.
First-off:
A camera is essentially a light source(flash) with a circular lens.
When the camera flash activates it sends out light in waves at (v=c), these specific waves have a specific wavelength(In the Visible light EM spectrum as you can see it) that travels from the flash in ALL DIRECTIONS. Now, as a small tid-bit(learn something for a change) the smaller the wavelength the sharper ther picture) This is the chief reason why Electron microscopes are so precise...the wavelength of an electron is VERY small. Anyways, back to making you look foolish. Some of the emited light waves from the flash of the camera hit me, and are recorded optically by the lens of the camera as an image(They essentially bounce back to the camera and are recorded by the lens optically)The light emitted by the flash travels in all directions. The flash does NOT diffract the light beam being emitted from it. It is all-directional not uni-directional. Anyways, the light that has not hit me(In wave format), then hits the mirrors to the left and right of me.(Now remember that the velocity of light waves = c, so the camera mechanism has no chance whatsoever of snapping the initial picture of me formed by the first incoming light waves from the flash, and not also record the after-image formed by the reflections and refractions of the light waves that missed me. So, going right along, the light waves that miss me hit the objects outwith the contours of my body.
Now we come to the optics part of my little dissertation.
There is no such thing as a perfect mirror unless you happen to go by and get an astronomical-grade mirror. Any commercially made mirror is going to have some small refractive index. Doesn't matter how big it is, its still going to be > 1.00, therefore the emitted light waves are going to be refracted back from the mirrors behind me at angles that are (90 - incidence angle) in degrees. So, if a light wave hits the mirror to my right at a 30 degree angle(Sin 30 = 0.866), and the index of refraction is lets just say 1.05(Small but who cares), the incident light wave will be (1.00)sin(30) = (1.05)(sin(x)). Therefore, sin(x) = (1.00/1.05)sin(30) = 0.824 Therefore Sin(Zeta)(0.824) < Sin of Initial incident angle(0.824)....the angle of refraction will be greater than 30 degrees. And from this, the angle of refraction( 90 - incidence angle) will be > 30 degrees relative to the horizontal plane of the mirrors behind me( So about <60 degrees relative to me). Obviously, as the beams of emitted light start to reach (1,2) degrees outwith the contours of my body, the angle of incidence is going to be very big(About 88,89 degrees), therefore, sin(x) is going to approach 1/1.05, which is approx. 0.95. Now the Sin(exp-1) of 0.95 is about near zero(Very close. A couple of degrees). So that means that the angle of reflection BACK to me is (90 - 3(Just an example) = 87 degrees. So, practically, straight right back at me. So, from that little analisis we can conclude that all manner of light waves with different angles of incidence where refracted by the mirror behind me, and therefore BOUNCED back in angles ranging from 3 degrees relative to the horizontal line in front of the camera lens(relative to me both left and right and up and down) to close to 90 degrees(Again..left,right,up, and down). And these light waves where then subsequently CAPTURED by the optical lens of the camera, as an after-image formed by the light waves that missed the optical lens of the camera the first time light was emitted by the flash, but then subsequently where refracted and hit the mirror in front of me(The camera was aimed at the mirror behind me). This is what we refer to in optics as an after-image...and is what generated the sort of twinkling or doubling effect of some of my bodyparts, since I wasn't exactly standing perfectly horizontal to the lens of the camera.
And me saying light bending? Where the heck do you get that from?
I never said that because it has nothing to do with this. Light in a medium not involving a very large gravitational field can only reflect, refract, or diffract(diffraction grating). But in case you're wondering, light CAN bend...due to gravity. Thats Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for your information.
Care to comment on my supposed stupidity now?
I guess not.
I will steamroll right over you each and every time, just to teach you a good lesson. You may think you're smart...but there is ALWAYS going to be, no matter what, someone smarter than you. I learned that my first semester of grad school. Try to engrave that in your memory, so that you're not made to look like a total fool again by somebody else.
And if you're in a top percentile of whatever faculty, it is truly a sad day for the academic community at large.
Fonz
GoldenDelicious
New member
you mean youre not lying. for once.Fonz said:
i suppose the english faculty at Oxford forgot to mention to you that you are not to begin sentences with the word "and". ooops, there you just did it in the next line too. how clumsy of you.
what grade did you get, by the way? are you sure you didnt learn on Oxford street or something?
Fonz said:
ah yes, it all makes sense now. your (partial...if existant) degrees in physics and engineering qualify you to lecture a fully trained pharmacist about pharmacology, pharmacotherapeutics, and the judicious use of therapeutic agents. excuse me for presuming to offer my input on such a topic!
Fonz said:
ahem excuse me professor fonz, if i might interrupt. a camera IS NOT "essentially a light source (flash) with a circular lens."
a conventional camera is in fact a device utilising an aperture, a moving shutter, and a fixed strip of photosensitive film, designed in such a manner as to expose the film to a short burst of incident light in such a way as to produce an image on the film.
a digital camera uses the same principle, but substitutes the fixed film with a fixed CCD in order to capture a digital reading which is then prcessed to produce an image.
flashes are optional in both, and i didnt even get to talk about video cameras. dearie me. please excuse me for interrupting
Fonz said:
ahem. look, sorry to keep interrupting you like this, but i thought id just point out that you missed a really, really, really good opportunity to lecture me about the combined particule/wave duality in the propogation of light waves/photons. if you keep missing this stuff, all the people reading this (as well as myself) might think that youre a rather shoddy engineer who really has no idea what he is talking about.
furthermore the readers (and myself) might think that this whole reply of yours is yet another convoluted, jargonised torrent of utter rubbish laced with enough partially alluded-to concepts that the uninformed might actually think that you know what youre talking about.
ooops sorry, i did it again. please, continue, fonz
Fonz said:
LOL!!!! ROFL!!!!!! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh, please, please, im overtraining my abs here
i cant believe you said all that! LOOOOOL!!fonz, quit engineering now (if youre actually enrolled) because i think youre kind of confused.... you see, as the wavelength changes, so too does the color of the light. this image sharpness is an utter load of crap.
Fonz said:
ill take that to mean: second ab set starting now
Fonz said:
ok, ill admit i never would have considered this. i mean, light....recorded...optically....wow what a concept. i always thought you detected it sonically
Fonz said:
whoa stop right there professor, im lost. when did we start talking about ripping mp3's? mate we're talking about physics not burning cds!!
wave format lol. i bet your (phantom) professors love that
Fonz said:
hang on, youre saying that the camera mechanism isnt quite quick enough to catch the first image, but opens and shuts just in time to catch the second image
am i confused? are we not talking about light here? youre saying that your camera shutter can travel fast enough to open and close in time to slot in between two images (well...potential images anyway) when the images are technically moving 300000000 metres per second.
now that is a fucking fast camera shutter. hell, mine stay open for 1/400 of a second but yours does it for only 1/300000000ths (give or take a 0) of a second.
must be a Nikon.
Fonz said:
mupf? what was that? i must have dozed off. all i read was "blah blah blah, the shitty crooked non astronomical mirror gave me a third ear"
Fonz said:
LOOOOOOOOOL!!! end of ab set 3
so what youre trying to say with all of that bullshit (and it is bullshit) is that because the lens can "see" a reflection of the back of your head, it will record a reflection of the back of your head.
fonz, theres your doctorate right there! that, is revolutionary. i never would have thought.
Fonz said:
from your previous post where you said something a,ong the lines of light "travels in a roughly circular way"
Fonz said:
well that explains it then. the light in your photo was bending around your perception of your own intelligence, and ego. theyre easily big enough to be counted amongst those astronomical bodies with enough mass to exert such an effect. come to think of it, so does the depth of your denial
Fonz said:
do you REALLY REALLY REALLY want me too fonz? really?
Fonz said:
looks like your teachers screwed it all up right from the word go
Fonz said:
i am. does it burn, fonzie baby? does it buuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn?????
Enough with the powder induced freshman physics discussion.
This thread almost turned into an intellegent discussion on the potential risks involved with DNP use.. BBers are so cavelier about this stuff, it a good REALITY check thread may have been helpful..
But not this thread.. This should be locked. What a circus.
This thread almost turned into an intellegent discussion on the potential risks involved with DNP use.. BBers are so cavelier about this stuff, it a good REALITY check thread may have been helpful..
But not this thread.. This should be locked. What a circus.
- Status
Similar threads
