Finite Relativism (FR) book
in [Relativity]
|
From: Phil Bouchard on 15 Dec 2009 16:24 Greg Neill wrote: > > ...brought to you from the guy who thinks that squares > don't have diagonals, and can't determine the distance > between points. If you still think: 1) Having rational numbers as an input and getting converted into irrational numbers is okay as far as a physical theory is concerned; 2) Then you seem having forgotten about the initial disproof you silently dismissed and never answered in fact: http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr-cannonballs.pdf 3) Did I mention an infinite amount of Universes created on the fly for every instant doesn't make any sense?
From: Phil Bouchard on 15 Dec 2009 16:29 Greg Neill wrote: > > You're not contributing, you're selling. I have contributed: - A paper - A simulator approximating predictions - 3 GR disproofs
From: PD on 15 Dec 2009 17:15 On Dec 15, 1:46 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > Uncle Al wrote: > > > wrong. > > > idiot > > Rational numbers -> GR -> Irrational numbers Oh good heavens Rational numbers -> Classical Newtonian physics -> Irrational numbers - > no problem -> get over it. > > Retarded. > > [...]
From: PD on 15 Dec 2009 17:16 On Dec 15, 3:29 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: > > > You're not contributing, you're selling. > > I have contributed: > - A paper > - A simulator approximating predictions > - 3 GR disproofs What GR disproofs?
From: PD on 15 Dec 2009 17:17
On Dec 15, 1:57 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > eric gisse wrote: > > Phil Bouchard wrote: > > > Phil, the thing that's so great about you is that you are stupid enough to > > take simple terminology literally. A normal student just sees 'irrational > > numbers' or 'imaginary numbers' and understands them to be a name, but you > > are special. You think they are _actually_ imaginary of _actually_ > > irrational. > > An irrational number will never be the right answer. The circumference of a circle that has diameter 1 is not really pi? That isn't the right answer for that circumference? |