Finite Relativism (FR) book
in [Relativity]
|
From: Phil Bouchard on 15 Dec 2009 17:53 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. Just live knowing that, I can't change your neural net.
From: Bill Snyder on 15 Dec 2009 17:57 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:53:21 -0800, Phil Bouchard <phil(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. And you evidence for this claim is . . . ? -- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
From: Phil Bouchard on 15 Dec 2009 17:57 PD wrote: > > Of course pi is an irrational number. So would be the circumference of > a circle of diameter 1. > But YOU said that irrational numbers aren't right answers. Is the pi > circumference of a circle of diameter 1 the right answer or not the > right answer? I said irrational numbers aren't the right answers if all your inputs consist of rational numbers. Pi has an irrational number as an input so it must return an irrational number.
From: Phil Bouchard on 15 Dec 2009 18:03 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.
From: Greg Neill on 15 Dec 2009 18:48
Phil Bouchard wrote: > 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; Nothing wrong with that. They're all real numbers. You're simply displaying your 'irrational' phobia for scary words. > > 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 Liar. You were taken to task six ways from Sunday on that nonsence. You repeatedly displayed your incompetence and refused to come to terms with your errors. In other words, you ignore any and all attemtps to correct your own grievous misunderstandings. You are knowledge deaf. > > 3) Did I mention an infinite amount of Universes created on the fly for > every instant doesn't make any sense? Yes you did. Why do you bother? |