Finite Relativism (FR) book
in [Relativity]
|
From: Phil Bouchard on 15 Dec 2009 21:58 Nightcrawler wrote: > > The only thing you have proven is that, when shewed, you hump the leg > harder. ^^ > shooed > > (both words are interchangeable in this context) "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." -- Albert Einstein
From: eric gisse on 15 Dec 2009 22:44 Phil Bouchard wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: >> >> And he uses the Cartesian formula for distances to >> do his calculation supposedly in order to avoid using >> square roots! What a maroon! > > My world works with spherical coordinates only. You rant nonsensically about square roots and irrational numbers. Perhaps you would be interested to know about a fellow who posted here for many years about his absolute certainty that (-1) x (-1) = -1 ?
From: eric gisse on 15 Dec 2009 22:50 Phil Bouchard wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 12/15/09 6:51 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote: >>> >>> If the input is: >>> rho = sqrt(1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2) >>> rho = 1.73 >> >> Phil confuses squares and cubes.... are we surprised? > > Those are the inputs Sam, not the function itself. Phil, if you are lonely why don't you just put down your phone number and ask someone to call?
From: Greg Neill on 15 Dec 2009 23:37 Phil Bouchard wrote: > Phil Bouchard wrote: >> >> The Cartesian coordinates system is not a physical law. If you have >> simple geometry questions, go to sci.math. > > In fact z = 0. What if the square is in the z-x plane? Or the z=y plane? Or rotated and located at random in space? Face it phil, you're out of your depth.
From: Greg Neill on 15 Dec 2009 23:38
Phil Bouchard wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: > > [...] > >> So, in your fantasy world changing coordinate systems >> changes the size of the thing being measured? > > The Cartesian coordinates system is not a physical law. If you have > simple geometry questions, go to sci.math. Apparently a much better idea than asking you! |