It’s not in your former student’s thesis. It doesn’t matter how many times you tell me to check, or how many different details that have come up in various discussions that you think she included. She clearly did this calculation, but aside from one utterly pointless diagram, she doesn’t include any detail about what she did. I don’t have to check again, it is not there. I swear to God, I’m going to photocopy the relevant section and staple it to your forehead so that you can ponder the profound depth and the remarkable extent to which she did not include any details about this fucking calculation.
It’s not derived in Schmendrick et al. (1983). It’s not derived in Pollo del Mar et al. (2001). They each provide a half-assed description of some sort of arcane black magic by which they accomplished the calculation, but none of them derive their formulas or show how to apply them. Pollo del Mar, in fact, restricts himself to providing one single equation that is patently dimensionally incorrect. I have been sleeping with both of these papers under my pillow for the last two years because they do have other stuff in them that’s useful, and I am pulling my hair out over this calculation. If Schemndrick or Pollo del Mar had anything useful to say about it, I would know about it. I would have fucking availed myself of their wisdom and insight instead of bashing my head about a brick wall off and on over a couple of months trying to work it all out myself.
Despite the fact that this is a fairly common calculation, I have been over, under and through the goddamn literature, and I can assure you that in the history of astronomy, nobody has ever been arsed to publish it, anywhere. If you could actually help me with the parts of the calculations I’m having trouble with instead of referring me over and over again to sources that I know are not going to be of any help, that would be nice.
Thank you.
P.S. While I’m at it, fuck Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. Fuck his definition of flux that has a factor of one over pi in it and fuck his definition of intensity relative to a fucking element of area dee sigma that you can never tell out where it is or how it’s oriented. Fuck Chandrasekhar sideways (Would that be theta equals pi over 2 or theta equals zero or theta equals my Aunt Fanny? NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS!!!) with the fucking “radiation pencil” he road in on. Fuck him, and then integrate him over four pi FUCKING steradians.
I’ll accept a lot on these boards. I’ve read thread after thread that pissed me off, but I managed to keep my cool and prevent myself from responding. But, Mister Podkayne, you do NOT fucking diss Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar!!!
That man was a SAINT! Arguably one of the greatest Indians EVER! Worked himself up from basically nothing to become one of the world’s greatest astrophysicists! Just because you’re too much of a spacklehead to understand him doesn’t make his work any less revolutionary, you BASTARD!!!
I absolutely, absolutely love this (sorry Smeghead.)
I’ll have to look these up. Some of my own favorite references are Schodde and Slack (1989), J. Bromeante de Burlas y Tonterias (1948), and Bitbrain and Assfugl (1949).
Sorry but dissing Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is just not on, one of the greatest scientists of all time. You know he invented the first Indian Death Ray at the age of only 12, but after burning his father’s Cow Shed was told to stick to theoretical Astrophysics and Mathematics.
They say that true wisdom comes from being aware of one’s own ignorance. I hope that’s true, because after reading this thread I feel pretty freaking dumb.
(repeats to self) There is nothing wrong with a liberal arts eductation. There is nothing wrong with a liberal arts education. There is nothing wrong with a liberal arts education…
Ummmmm, wouldn’t Podkayne be a she and not a he and therefore a bitch and not a bastard? Just asking.
Unasked for advice coming: Podkayne; “just think of something clever”. This was the advice given to a PhD student close to me, in circumstances somewhat similar to yours. Makes me giggle every time I think of it, hehehehe.
A thought for Podkayne: Perhaps the reason your professor is referring you to all those sources is that he doesn’t understand how to derive the equation either, and for obvious reasons is disinclined to admit that to a student.
In fact, it’s plausible that somebody somewhere jumped to a conclusion in using that equation in order to produce those results, and because they work, nobody has ever questioned the assumption that the equation is a proper derivation.
Which leads to a really scary thought: Isn’t that what happened in both “Blowups Happen” and “The Year of the Jackpot”? :eek:
Let me just say that as an English major I have no effing clue what you all are talking about, but it is still incredibly funny! I feel your pain, continue the good work. This is why I subscribe.
