Finite Relativism (FR) book
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 10:45 On Dec 16, 1:28 am, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> 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. Is the length of a diagonal being an irrational number an unacceptable result, Phil? Note that you even used a square root, and you got an irrational number for the result. > > I don't see how you can understand the 2 simple postulates of FR. > > > What exactly are you here for, Phil? > > With all means, to tell you the truth and then leave.
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 10:47 On Dec 15, 8:00 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: > > [..] > > > Sorry, you used a square root so it can't be right, > > can it Phil? Not according to your theory of the > > world. Also, if you thought that irrational > > numbers were scary, using trig functions lands you > > right smack in the land of transcendental numbers... > > This is because you do not understand mathematics. GR will never give > the right answer. > > > Also, since when is the diagonal of a square of > > side length 1 not sqrt(2) ~~ 1.414 ? > > > Wrong, wrong, wrong, in so very many ways. > > My mistake I used spherical coordinates when polar coordinates were > required. But your world only uses spherical coordinates, Phil. You said so. So using polar coordinates must be irrational and not right.
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 10:50 On Dec 15, 4:53 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > > To you. Doesn't make sense TO YOU. > > Is something not making sense to you what you call a disproof? > > The chances are much higher Einstein was an incompetent than an infinite > amount of Universes are continuously created on the fly to satisfy your > feelings. But you don't know how to calculate chances, Phil. You've demonstrated that when you've tried. You don't know how to calculate chances any more than you know how to calculate the diagonal of a square. > > Just live knowing that, I can't change your neural net. But I don't know it, Phil. What you say isn't construed as knowledge. It's construed as bullshit. It's as though you were saying, "Just live knowing that Julius Caesar was French."
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 10:51 On Dec 15, 5:03 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > Bill Snyder wrote: > > > And you evidence for this claim is . . . ? > > Are you kidding me? This is called probability, just like Einstein's > plagiarism likeliness elevating to 94%. > > Even if you don't believe in it I got 2 other disproofs. Even if you > don't like the disproofs then this is what you call an abuse of power. Ah. So pointing out that what you say is bullshit, pure and simple, is evidence of an abuse of power? You never got much love at home, did you, Phil?
From: Phil Bouchard on 16 Dec 2009 11:51
PD wrote: > > Is the length of a diagonal being an irrational number an unacceptable > result, Phil? > Note that you even used a square root, and you got an irrational > number for the result. The diagonal is an approximation, this is why it'll never be a law. |