Electron’s puzzles.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: instructor's solutions manual for Linear dynamic systems and signals by Zoran Gajic
Next: What does a gluon look like?
From: glird on 16 May 2010 12:12 On May 16, 1:12 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On May 15, 1:29 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow. >> Do you know what my assumptions were? > > Only the basic assumption that you keep trying to treat this as an > algebra problem when it's not. E's "proof" was and is an algebra problem. Indeed, other than the symbol "phi(v)" itself, there is NO calculus in it at all. Instead of arguing with me over these minor details J. Waldof, please look at the thread called OOPS, says "Androcles" and PLEASE post a reply to it. glird
From: waldofj on 16 May 2010 14:28 On May 16, 12:12 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On May 16, 1:12 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > On May 15, 1:29 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow. > >> Do you know what my assumptions were? > > > Only the basic assumption that you keep trying to treat this as an > > algebra problem when it's not. > > E's "proof" was and is an algebra problem. Indeed, other than the > symbol "phi(v)" itself, there is NO calculus in it at all. true the proof is algebraic, what I'm referring to is your assumptions about phi(v) itself, what it is, where it comes from, what it means. You're assumptions are completely wrong so you draw the wrong conclusions, the main one being you think E's proof is defective. > > Instead of arguing with me over these minor details J. Waldof, they're not minor details, they go to the heart of your confusion over the whole subject. > please look at the thread called > OOPS, says "Androcles" > and PLEASE post a reply to it. I thought about. I don't think so, ever hear the phrase "carrying coals to Newcastle"? > > glird
From: glird on 17 May 2010 17:36 On May 16, 2:28 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On May 16, 12:12 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow. > > >> Do you know what my assumptions were? > > > > Only the basic assumption that you keep trying to treat this as an > > > algebra problem when it's not. > > > E's "proof" was and is an algebra problem. Indeed, other than the > > symbol "phi(v)" itself, there is NO calculus in it at all. > > true the proof is algebraic, what I'm referring to is your assumptions > about phi(v) itself, what it is, where it comes from, what it means. > You're assumptions are completely wrong so you draw the wrong > conclusions, the main one being you think E's proof is defective. My conclusion re the defect in E's algebraic "proof" that f(!) = 1 has nothing to do with the meaning of phi(?) or where it comes from of what it means. > > Instead of arguing with me over these minor details J. Waldof, > > they're not minor details, they go to the heart of your confusion over > the whole subject. They are minor details compared to the general confusion of you and everyone else over the whole subject. > > please look at the thread called > > OOPS, says "Androcles" > > and PLEASE post a reply to it. > > I thought about. I don't think so, ever hear the phrase "carrying > coals to Newcastle"? If that will help everyone living in Newcastle, why not do it? glird
From: waldofj on 17 May 2010 22:38 On May 17, 5:36 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On May 16, 2:28 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > On May 16, 12:12 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > >> Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow. > > > >> Do you know what my assumptions were? > > > > > Only the basic assumption that you keep trying to treat this as an > > > > algebra problem when it's not. > > > > E's "proof" was and is an algebra problem. Indeed, other than the > > > symbol "phi(v)" itself, there is NO calculus in it at all. > > > true the proof is algebraic, what I'm referring to is your assumptions > > about phi(v) itself, what it is, where it comes from, what it means. > > You're assumptions are completely wrong so you draw the wrong > > conclusions, the main one being you think E's proof is defective. > > My conclusion re the defect in E's algebraic "proof" that f(!) = 1 > has > nothing to do with the meaning of phi(?) or where it comes from of > what > it means. > > > > Instead of arguing with me over these minor details J. Waldof, > > > they're not minor details, they go to the heart of your confusion over > > the whole subject. > > They are minor details compared to the general confusion of you > and everyone else over the whole subject. So, when you encounter something that is incomprehensible to you, despite it being comprehensible to hundreds of thousands of other people, rather than treat it as an opportunity to learn something you just assume it's nonsense and go back to spinning your wheels in you own little tiny universe. you are pitiable. > > > > please look at the thread called > > > OOPS, says "Androcles" > > > and PLEASE post a reply to it. > > > I thought about. I don't think so, ever hear the phrase "carrying > > coals to Newcastle"? > > If that will help everyone living in Newcastle, why not do it? but that's the point, it doesn't help anyone living in Newcastle. It's meaningless effort. > > glird
From: glird on 18 May 2010 16:05
On May 17, 10:38 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > So, when you encounter something that is incomprehensible to you, > despite it being comprehensible to hundreds of thousands of other > people, rather than treat it as an opportunity to learn something you > just assume it's nonsense and go back to spinning your wheels in your > own little tiny universe. > you are pitiable. > It is just the opposite! Hundreds of millions of people have never understood the mechanism of gravity or what light physically is or what a photon is or how an atom reacts with transient light in a quantum reaction. I do. Rather than investigate my explanations, you just assume they are nonsense, and ignorantly ignore them. glird |