Finite Relativism (FR) book
Phil Bouchard
core mathematics remain the same:
https://www.createspace.com/3370163
As we all know FR maps the entire Universe into neat equations covering
all of the following:
- GPS
- Particle momentum
- Hubble Sphere
- Dark Matter
- Perihelion precession
- Bending of light
The latter was found to be exactly the same as to what is predicted by
General Relativity, in the same circumstances.
Thank you,
-Phil
NB: "Sam Wormley" was removed by request and so is "Doug" for having no
last name.
eric gisse
> The latest version of the book has many textual corrections, but the
> core mathematics remain the same:
> https://www.createspace.com/3370163
>
> As we all know FR maps the entire Universe into neat equations covering
> all of the following:
>
> - GPS
> - Particle momentum
> - Hubble Sphere
> - Dark Matter
> - Perihelion precession
> - Bending of light
>
> The latter was found to be exactly the same as to what is predicted by
> General Relativity, in the same circumstances.
"Publication Date: Jan 23 2009"
But Phil, didn't we already establish that your theory doesn't correctly
predict anything as well as the fact that the 'hubble sphere' is nothing
more than a catchphrase you spout when cornered?
Clearly you love the abuse otherwise you would not have came back, because
nothing else has changed other than your mental state.
Uncle Al
>
> The latest version of the book has many textual corrections, but the
> core mathematics remain the same:
wrong.
idiot
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
GR prediction for periastron precession scales as (semi-major
axis)^(-3), as observed for Mercury perihelion precession and deeply
relativistic periastron precessions such as
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2861
DI Herculis anomalous orbital precession
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~bretonr/doublepulsar/
Binary pulsar PSR J0737-3039A/B, 16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Phil Bouchard
>
> wrong.
>
> idiot
Rational numbers -> GR -> Irrational numbers
Retarded.
[...]
eric gisse
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.
>
> [...]
Phil Bouchard
> On 12/15/09 1:46 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>
> Christ Phil--learn some mathematics!
> Why do you bloody your nose here?
Sam, I removed your name as requested so please remove your comment on
Amazon:
http://amzn.com/1441453105
Phil Bouchard
> 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.
Phil Bouchard
>
> He is advertising a product, and he feels like he is doing an
> important job, if people pay any attention to him. He likes his
> "fame".
No I am not looking for pride at all. I am looking for what you seem to
be afraid of: moving on.
dlzc
...
> No I am not looking for pride at all. I am looking
> for what you seem to be afraid of: moving on.
You aren't moving on. You aren't getting past the mistakes, you
aren't getting over your misconceptions, you are only wasting time.
You are enshrining your msitakes, apparently in hopes of forcing
others to make the same. And hoping to get paid.
Phil Bouchard
>
> You aren't moving on. You aren't getting past the mistakes, you
> aren't getting over your misconceptions, you are only wasting time.
> You are enshrining your msitakes, apparently in hopes of forcing
> others to make the same. And hoping to get paid.
2 things:
- Nobody found any mistake in this entire year 2009.
- PD is not even willing betting against FR $5.
Perhaps you prefer paying artists and politicians, then go.
dlzc
> - Nobody found any mistake in this entire year 2009.
> - PD is not even willing betting against FR $5.
>
> Perhaps you prefer paying artists and politicians, then go.
You lie. Your lies are on record. Says a lot about how stupid you
think the rest of humanity is.
Any further posts by you will be reported by me as spam. You are
selling product, in violation of the charter.
Phil Bouchard
>
> Hey Phil--What institute is it you claim to have a mathematics
> degree from?
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
"Irrational numbers have decimal expansions that neither terminate nor
become periodic."
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> Perhaps you prefer paying artists and politicians, then go.
Here's a good book for you:
http://amzn.com/0061939897
Sam Wormley
It's a book review, not a comment. You sent me a copy of your
book to review and I reviewed your book.
Customer Reviews
Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity Reegineered
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativism-Dark-Matter-Disproof/dp/1441453105/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an
attempt by the author to disprove special relativity, Dark Matter and to
solve many of what the author perceives as "dilemmas" such as singularities,
black hole behaviors and natural worm holes. Unfortunately, the author
demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of special or general
relativity or the underlying mathematics of either theory. The author
confuses the concepts of acceleration and velocity in the abstract and
goes downhill from there. One can open the book to almost any page and
find the conceptual arguments and calculations wrong. In a section on GPS,
the author plots gravitational time dilation as a function of altitude
which is totally contradicted by general relativity predictions and
observations of time dilation in earth satellite clocks. I cannot
recommend this book to anyone, even as an example of how not to write
about science. -- Sam Wormley, Adj. Prof. Astronomy'
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> Hey Phil--What institute is it you claim to have a mathematics
>> degree from?
>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
>
> "Irrational numbers have decimal expansions that neither terminate nor
> become periodic."
"An irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction
p/q for any integers p and q.
>
> Sam, I removed your name as requested so please remove your comment on
> Amazon:
> http://amzn.com/1441453105
It's a book review, not a comment. You sent me a copy of your
Phil Bouchard
>
> You lie. Your lies are on record. Says a lot about how stupid you
> think the rest of humanity is.
It is unfortunate Doug used an alias because I do acknowledge him.
> Any further posts by you will be reported by me as spam. You are
> selling product, in violation of the charter.
Science contributions aren't illegal.
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> 'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
> contribute a review.
Well I just removed it, so please remove the comment.
eric gisse
Really, Phil?
What's the square root of two?
eric gisse
Sam is under no obligation to remove his review.
Phil Bouchard
>
> Sam is under no obligation to remove his review.
Let Sam talk for himself.
Greg Neill
> The latest version of the book has many textual corrections, but the
> core mathematics remain the same:
...brought to you from the guy who thinks that squares
don't have diagonals, and can't determine the distance
between points.
Greg Neill
You're not contributing, you're selling.
Phil Bouchard
>
> ...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?
Phil Bouchard
>
> You're not contributing, you're selling.
I have contributed:
- A paper
- A simulator approximating predictions
- 3 GR disproofs
PD
> 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.
>
> [...]
PD
What GR disproofs?
PD
The circumference of a circle that has diameter 1 is not really pi?
That isn't the right answer for that circumference?
PD
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > Hey Phil--What institute is it you claim to have a mathematics
> > degree from?
> > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
>
> "Irrational numbers have decimal expansions that neither terminate nor
> become periodic."
And this is a problem why?
Sam Wormley
Two people found my review useful... there will likely be more.
I owe that much to perspective buyers.
PD
>
> 3) Did I mention an infinite amount of Universes created on the fly for
> every instant doesn't make any sense?
To you. Doesn't make sense TO YOU.
Is something not making sense to you what you call a disproof?
eric gisse
Am I talking for Sam when I say he is under no obligation to a single
fucking thing you say?
Phil Bouchard
>
> The circumference of a circle that has diameter 1 is not really pi?
> That isn't the right answer for that circumference?
Given the definition of pi:
pi = C/d
Since either C, d or both must be an irrational input number then pi
will be irrational number as well.
PD
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?
Phil Bouchard
>
> 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.
Bill Snyder
<ph...@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]
Phil Bouchard
>
> 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.
Phil Bouchard
>
> 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.
Greg Neill
> 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?
Greg Neill
The side of a square has length 1. What is the length
of the diagonal?
Nightcrawler
What an absolute douche. Your theory sucks, and you are a weak man.
Bill Snyder
In other words, you have nothing but mouth. Got it.
Uncle Al
>
> eric gisse 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.
1) Diagonal of a square.
2) Circumference of a circle.
3) idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Phil Bouchard
>
> The side of a square has length 1. What is the length
> of the diagonal?
Use spherical coordinates.
Phil Bouchard
>
> In other words, you have nothing but mouth. Got it.
I see laziness, denial and fear on the other end.
Phil Bouchard
> On 12/15/2009 12:28 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>
> What an absolute douche. Your theory sucks, and you are a weak man.
We're playing roller-hockey next Sunday. You wanna join?
Greg Neill
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.
Phil Bouchard
>
> 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
Bill Snyder
I may be lazy, but there's nothing to deny or fear. I asked you
for evidence; all you had was BS.
Phil Bouchard
>
> I may be lazy, but there's nothing to deny or fear. I asked you
> for evidence; all you had was BS.
Given I have proven multiple times GR is wrong then wormholes and an
infinite number of Universes must also be wrong.
Regardless FR proved its experimental evidence with the bending of light
and consequently GR can be silently dismissed.
Nightcrawler
> Given I have proven multiple times GR is wrong then wormholes and an
> infinite number of Universes must also be wrong.
The only thing you have proven is that, when shewed, you hump the leg
harder. ^^
shooed
(both words are interchangeable in this context)
Sam Wormley
> 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
Phil confuses squares and cubes.... are we surprised?
Greg Neill
> 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
Why is that the input? Input to what? That's
not input, it's operations. You haven't explained
what you're doing here.
Are the 1's supposed to represent something? Looks
like the Cartesian coordinates of a vertex of a
cube, not a square, but its hard to tell without
you explicitly saying what you're doing.
>
> phi = acos(z / rho)
> phi = 54.74
>
> theta = atan2(1, 1)
> theta = 0.79
>
> Then the length of the diagonal will be:
> 1.73
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...
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.
Phil Bouchard
> 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.
Greg Neill
> On 12/15/09 6:51 PM, Phil Bouchard 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
>
> Phil confuses squares and cubes.... are we surprised?
And he uses the Cartesian formula for distances to
do his calculation supposedly in order to avoid using
square roots! What a maroon!
Phil Bouchard
[..]
> 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.
Phil Bouchard
>
> 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.
Greg Neill
> 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.
Hey, I'm not the one bollixing up trivial math here...
>
>> 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.
So, in your fantasy world changing coordinate systems
changes the size of the thing being measured?
Greg Neill
And yet you can't use them to do simple calculations.
You don't even understand the tools you choose to use.
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> 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.
Sam Wormley
Looky here, Phil: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=square
Phil Bouchard
>
> The Cartesian coordinates system is not a physical law. If you have
> simple geometry questions, go to sci.math.
In fact z = 0.
Phil Bouchard
>
> And yet you can't use them to do simple calculations.
> You don't even understand the tools you choose to use.
I don't want to be a professor so don't act like a student.
The Cartesian coordinates system is not a physical law. If you have
simple geometry questions, go to sci.math.
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" -- Albert Einstein
Phil Bouchard
>
> And yet you can't use them to do simple calculations.
> You don't even understand the tools you choose to use.
Albert Einstein, when asked to describe radio, replied:
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull
his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you
understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send
signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there
is no cat."
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." --
Albert Einstein
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." --
Albert Einstein
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!" -- Albert Einstein
Phil Bouchard
>
> 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
eric gisse
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 ?
eric gisse
Phil, if you are lonely why don't you just put down your phone number and
ask someone to call?
Greg Neill
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.
Greg Neill
Apparently a much better idea than asking you!
Greg Neill
> Greg Neill wrote:
>>
>> And yet you can't use them to do simple calculations.
>> You don't even understand the tools you choose to use.
>
> I don't want to be a professor so don't act like a student.
This from a person who wants to teach new physics?
What exactly are you here for, Phil?
Greg Neill
> Greg Neill wrote:
>>
>> And yet you can't use them to do simple calculations.
>> You don't even understand the tools you choose to use.
[snip nonsequitur reply]
Nightcrawler
Such talent. You managed to lick your balls before switching legs.
I'm impressed.
BradGuth
> The latest version of the book has many textual corrections, but the
> core mathematics remain the same:https://www.createspace.com/3370163
>
> As we all know FR maps the entire Universe into neat equations covering
> all of the following:
>
> - GPS
> - Particle momentum
> - Hubble Sphere
> - Dark Matter
> - Perihelion precession
> - Bending of light
>
> The latter was found to be exactly the same as to what is predicted by
> General Relativity, in the same circumstances.
>
> Thank you,
> -Phil
>
> NB: "Sam Wormley" was removed by request and so is "Doug" for having no
> last name.
You must be wearing bullet proof full-body armor.
~ BG
BradGuth
> Nightcrawler wrote:
> > On 12/15/2009 12:28 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>
> > What an absolute douche. Your theory sucks, and you are a weak man.
>
> We're playing roller-hockey next Sunday. You wanna join?
Notice how all these Zionist Nazi brown-nosed clowns have come out to
play.
(watch your back)
~ BG
Peter Webb
"Phil Bouchard" <ph...@fornux.com> wrote in message
news:4b27fc80$1...@news.x-privat.org...
> eric gisse wrote:
>>
>> Sam is under no obligation to remove his review.
>
> Let Sam talk for himself.
Thankyou for pointing out that your book is available through Amazon and
hence can be publicly reviewed.
Phil Bouchard
> 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.
I think you should go back to the bars downtown Montreal, they open
until 3:00 AM.
Phil Bouchard
>
> 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.
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.
Phil Bouchard
>
> Notice how all these Zionist Nazi brown-nosed clowns have come out to
> play.
>
> (watch your back)
This is sick. They can fight computer scientists, engineers,
mathematicians and non-Nazi physicists as long as they want; I wish them
good luck.
Inertial
> 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.
Nonsense. sqrt takes a rational as an input and can happily get irrational
as output.
> I don't see how you can understand the 2 simple postulates of FR.
I have asked you questions about them before as they are very vague and not
well defined
Phil Bouchard
Well I need relying on teaching self-discipline now.
Greg Neill
> 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.
Greg Neill
> 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.
eric gisse
> 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.
Uncle Al
>
> Greg Neill wrote:
> >
> > do his calculation supposedly in order to avoid using
> > square roots! What a maroon!
>
> My world works with spherical coordinates only.
There are no coordinates, the universe is covariant. Hey stooopid -
get yourself the Schaum's Outline Series that has a whole page of
coordinate system conversions. Anything done in one is done in all.
Special Relativity in circular or hyperbolic trigonometry is
identical. Wave mechanics and matrix mechanics quantum mechanics are
identical. You cannot erase irrational or transcendental numbers.
Cartesian coordinate system
Cylindrical coordinate system
Spherical coordinate system
Parabolic coordinate system
Parabolic cylindrical coordinates
Paraboloidal coordinates
Oblate spheroidal coordinates
Prolate spheroidal coordinates
Ellipsoidal coordinates
Elliptic cylindrical coordinates
Toroidal coordinates
Bispherical coordinates
Bipolar cylindrical coordinates
Conical coordinates
Flat-ring cyclide coordinates
Flat-disk cyclide coordinates
Bi-cyclide coordinates
Cap-cyclide coordinates
Jesus H. Fucking Christ you are an ineducable ass.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
PD
> 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 = 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?
PD
> > 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?
PD
> 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.
PD
>
> > 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.
PD
> 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."
PD
> 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?
Phil Bouchard
>
> 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.
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> 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?
The scaling factor is a simplification and there are at most 4 of them
(solar system, cluster, supercluster, universe).
The cosmological constant is a real fudge factor and cannot be
simplified, so you're stuck with it.
> Leave, then.
Before I do, what's the real name of Doug?
Phil Bouchard
>
> But your world only uses spherical coordinates, Phil. You said so. So
> using polar coordinates must be irrational and not right.
All that is relevant is rho.
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> 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."
I'm not going to change you; I'm going to change the world around you.
Bill Snyder
Where are you institutionalized, and who would I contact to
suggest that letting you use the computer isn't good for you?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> I'm sure you were rather I were occupied elsewhere, rather
> than pointing out your tragic flaws.
It's too late now I got the bending of light, you missed the show.
Nightcrawler
> I'm not going to change you; I'm going to change the world around you.
Why don't you concentrate on changing your diaper, first.
Greg Neill
Your theories are sooo provincial (and I use the term
'theory' rather loosely).
Suppose an observer happened to travel to another solar
system. Would the fudge factors from back home still work?
I'll answer for you: No. The observer would have to use
GR to determine the correct answer locally and then
derive all new fudge factors for your theory from that.
Greg Neill
rho, rho, rho your boat, gently up shit's creek!
Greg Neill
Another non sequitur. And this guy thinks he can sell
a book!
Greg Neill
Proving once again that you don't know what a 'law' is
in science.