Finite Relativism (FR) book
in [Relativity]
|
From: Greg Neill on 16 Dec 2009 08:10 Phil Bouchard wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: >> Phil Bouchard wrote: >>> 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. > > I forgot z = 0 in my spherical calculations, that's all. Sloppy work and on such a simple exercise. You couldn't even explain the steps you doing; you simply threw out some lines from a crib sheet. It is indicative of your general incompetence. > > I think you should go back to the bars downtown Montreal, they open > until 3:00 AM. I'm sure you were rather I were occupied elsewhere, rather than pointing out your tragic flaws.
From: Greg Neill on 16 Dec 2009 08:13 Phil Bouchard wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: >> >> This from a person who wants to teach new physics? > > Well it took me more than 2 weeks explaining irrational numbers are not > acceptable results when all of the input consists or rational numbers. You explained nothing; You made a baseless, unsupported claim. This is another one of your flaws. You think that making a claim is the same as proving something. > > I don't see how you can understand the 2 simple postulates of FR. I don't think you understand what a postulate is in physics. > >> What exactly are you here for, Phil? > > With all means, to tell you the truth and then leave. More of the latter and less of the former would greatly improve the signal to noise ratio.
From: eric gisse on 16 Dec 2009 08:29 Phil Bouchard wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: >> >> This from a person who wants to teach new physics? > > Well it took me more than 2 weeks explaining irrational numbers are not > acceptable results when all of the input consists or rational numbers. What's the length of a diagonal of a square with sides of unit length? It is so cute how you say such stupid things about mathematics without any self awareness. > > I don't see how you can understand the 2 simple postulates of FR. Have you yet figured out how to match GR's predictions? Or do you need another 20 fudge factors to still be off by a country mile? > >> What exactly are you here for, Phil? > > With all means, to tell you the truth and then leave. Leave, then.
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 10:41 On Dec 15, 6:51 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: > > > Okay, a square has side length 1. What is the length of the > > diagonal. Use spherical coordinates if you wish. Show > > us the answer and how you calculated it. > > If the input is: > rho = sqrt(1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2) > rho = 1.73 > > phi = acos(z / rho) > phi = 54.74 > > theta = atan2(1, 1) > theta = 0.79 > > Then the length of the diagonal will be: > 1.73 You left out a few digits there. The ones that are typical of an irrational number. Is the length of the diagonal not right, then?
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 10:44
On Dec 15, 8:01 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> 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. And it still involves square roots and irrational numbers. Does this mean that your world is irrational, Phil? Are you feeling ok otherwise, Phil? |