Logicians are criminal.
Ka-In Yen
If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
Stop teaching logic in school. Mighty Einsten proves that logic is
totally nonsense. Logicians are criminal; they cheat my money
since I was a student of a junior high school.
sakhan
I do not know relativity, but a simple mathematical answer to this
could be that your high school knowledge is more general. Since A=C
means A > C and C < A.
Androcles
"sakhan" <xyz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5417e15a-c722-4e63...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
===========================================
You do no know relativity and you do not know what
an equality is either. Heads I win, tails you lose. Idiot.
Sam Wormley
>
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>
Physics FAQ: How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
Jon Slaughter
Your application of the logic is far to naive. Equality and inequality must
be defined on your objects. In logic this is fine since we are talking about
the equality/inequality of truth. In relativity we are talking about
distances and time.
Take 3 points A, B, C on a plane, sphere or whatever.
If equality means equality of distance between the two points is 1 then
transitivity clearly fails,
For example, on the 2D plane,
A = (0,0)
B = (1,0)
C = (2,0)
here A = B since ||A - B|| = 1 as is B = C. Yet A != C since ||A - C|| = 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
Read up on it. Not all binary operations are transitive. Your standard
logical equivalence is. In relativity one is comparing space-time distance
which is quite different. Your comparing apples with oranges.
Wong Pong
news:d486ac2d-4c92-422b...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Learn what the symbols '=' and '>' mean, you Google-posting fuckwit. And
learn how to write.
PD
> Since I was a student of a junior high school, I was taught that
>
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>
> But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
>
> if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
Where does relativity say that?
Dirk Van de moortel
31707019-7637-43a7...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
> On Dec 15, 6:44 am, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>> Since I was a student of a junior high school, I was taught that
>>
>> If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>>
>> But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
>>
>> if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
>
> Where does relativity say that?
Somewhere in http://aetherdynamics.blogspot.com/
He needs some help fine tuning this.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hg883l$80j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ka-In Yen wrote:
>> Since I was a student of a junior high school, I was taught that
>>
>> If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>>
>> But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
>>
>> if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
>>
>> Stop teaching logic in school. Mighty Einsten proves that logic is
>> totally nonsense. Logicians are criminal; they cheat my money
>> since I was a student of a junior high school.
>
> Your application of the logic is far to naive. Equality and inequality
> must be defined on your objects. In logic this is fine since we are
> talking about the equality/inequality of truth. In relativity we are
> talking about distances and time.
>
> Take 3 points A, B, C on a plane, sphere or whatever.
>
> If equality means equality of distance between the two points is 1 then
> transitivity clearly fails,
>
> For example, on the 2D plane,
>
> A = (0,0)
> B = (1,0)
> C = (2,0)
>
> here A = B
Bullshit!
eric gisse
If you actually made it through your education to take a course on group
theory or complex analysis you would flip your shit.
Ka-In Yen
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Somewhere in http://aetherdynamics.blogspot.com/
> He needs some help fine tuning this.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dear Dirk,
My theory survive severe bombardment; it's flawless.
Ka-In Yen
> On Dec 15, 6:44 am, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > Since I was a student of a junior high school, I was taught that
>
> > If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>
> > But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
>
> > if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
>
> Where does relativity say that?
This is greatest achievement in human history. Dont be coward.
Physicists should be proudly and loudly speak out: our mighty
Einstein overthrows logic. Hallelujah!
PD
You didn't answer the question.
Ka-In Yen
> On Dec 18, 5:57 pm, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 16, 12:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Where does relativity say that?
>
> > Dont be coward. Physicists should proudly and
> > loudly speak out: our mighty Einstein overthrows
> > logic. Hallelujah!
>
> You didn't answer the question.
Ask Androcle, his english is better than mine, he
can answer the question fluently.
eric gisse
Androcles is an idiot. Do you want an idiot to speak for you?
PD
Androcles is a buffoon. Surely you can explain what is illogical about
relativity. Or are you just a peanut-gallery spectator?
Ka-In Yen
>
> Androcles is an idiot. Do you want an idiot to speak for you?
No, he is not.
Homework III for Eric Gisse: Dont worry! It's very simple.
Taipei 101 is world's tallest skyscraper. Two
gentlemen, Duck(a teenage) and Goose (a physicist),
get the assignment to measure the height of
Taipei 101.
The teenage, Duck, use the triangle method to
measure the height of Taipei 101, and he gets
509.2 m from ground to top.
The physicist, Goose, use a special method to
measure Taipei 101, but he wont tell us the detail
of his method.
Now we have A=509.2 m measured by Duck. B is the
height of Taipei 101 which saves in the office of
101.
A=B=509.2 m
C is the height of Taipei 101 measured by Goose,
a PHYSICIST. What's C? You can choose from below:
1) C is equal to 509.2 m.
2) C is shorter than 509.2 m.
3) C is longer than 509.2 m.
New year firework of Taipei 101:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008TaipeiCityNewYearCountdownParty_Firework_Taipei101.jpg
eric gisse
> On Dec 22, 7:26 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Androcles is an idiot. Do you want an idiot to speak for you?
>
> No, he is not.
Yeah, he is.
[snip idiocy]
I am amused to see your level of argument has not progressed past what is
taught to 10 year olds.
Ka-In Yen
>
> I am amused to see your level of argument has not progressed past what is
> taught to 10 year olds.
Homework is good for you. It stimulates the growth of
neurocyte in your brain. Better than vitamin
Ka-In Yen
>
> Androcles is a buffoon. Surely you can explain what is illogical about
> relativity. Or are you just a peanut-gallery spectator?
Dear PD,
Can you help Eric Gisse finish his homework?
Ka-In Yen
> On Dec 18, 5:57 pm, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > > > But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
> > > > if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
>
Dont be coward. Its not so difficult to make a choice.
Is there any PHYSICIST who are willing to help Eric Gisse
finish his homework?
New year firework of Taipei 101:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Ov_ygQzGA
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> Since I was a student of a junior high school, I was taught that
>
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>
That would depend on your definition of the "=" sign, wouldn't it?
>
> But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
>
> if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
>
What are A, B and C? Are these real numbers? Elements of some other
ordered field?
>
> Stop teaching logic in school. Mighty Einsten proves that logic is
> totally nonsense. Logicians are criminal; they cheat my money
> since I was a student of a junior high school.
>
If you were indeed allowed to graduate from junior high school, you
have a very strong legal case: clearly, you have learned nothing and
are highly illogical.
Your school should give you triple the money you paid for your junior
high school education.
BTW, how much did you pay? Do you know that you could have gotten
equally bad education for free?
PD
I'm still waiting for you to back up a statement that YOU made. Why
are you deflecting?
PD
> On Dec 19, 12:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 5:57 pm, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > > > > But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
> > > > > if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
>
> > You didn't answer the question.
>
> Dont be coward. Its not so difficult to make a choice.
What choice?
You made a claim that special relativity makes the statement if A=B
and B=C, then A>C.
Now, either you just tossed that out there to make noise and you know
nothing about what SR says or does not say,
or you have something in mind but are for some reason terrified to say
what it is.
Ka-In Yen
> On Dec 25, 6:53 pm, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 12:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 5:57 pm, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > > > > > But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
> > > > > > if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
>
> > > You didn't answer the question.
>
> > Dont be coward. Its not so difficult to make a choice.
>
> What choice?
If you do'nt know the answer, you may ask a teenage.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
If you don't want to explain yourself, just let us talk to your
psychiatrist.
Ka-In Yen
After you find your courage to finish the homework III.
PD
Why do I need to do anything you've asked someone else to do? I asked
you to back up a statement YOU made.
Either you can do it, or you can't.
PD
You made a claim that special relativity makes the statement if A=B
and B=C, then A>C.
Now, either you just tossed that out there to make noise and you know
nothing about what SR says or does not say,
or you have something in mind but are for some reason terrified to say
what it is.
Are you man enough to own up to what you're doing? Or are you just a
side-court jeerer?
Ka-In Yen
> On Dec 27, 5:17 pm, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > After you find your courage to finish the homework III.
>
> Why do I need to do anything you've asked someone else to do?
Dear PD,
I change the title as below. I invite all physicists to do
the IQ test. My assumption is that IQ of physicists is
lower than teenagers after physicists learned the
Special theory of Relativity.
IQ test for PHYSICISTS:
Taipei 101 is world's tallest skyscraper. Two
gentlemen, Duck(a teenage) and Goose (a physicist),
get the assignment to measure the height of
Taipei 101.
The teenage, Duck, use the triangle method to
measure the height of Taipei 101, and he gets
509.2 m from ground to top.
The physicist, Goose, use a special method to
measure Taipei 101, but he wont tell us the detail
of his method.
Now we have A=509.2 m measured by Duck. B is the
height of Taipei 101 which saves in the office of
101.
A=B=509.2 m
C is the height of Taipei 101 measured by Goose,
a PHYSICIST. What's C? You can choose from below:
1) C is equal to 509.2 m.
2) C is shorter than 509.2 m.
3) C is longer than 509.2 m.
New year firework of Taipei 101:
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dl1Ov_ygQzGA
PD
I have no idea what you've heard a physicist claims the height of
Taipei 101 is. According to architectural drawings, it is 509.2 m from
ground to spire. Measured in the rest frame of the building, of
course.
What on earth does this have to do with the claims of special
relativity?
John Christiansen
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:fc2aa47d-d3a6-423c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I believe Ka-In Yen's problem is vector addition.
Rock Brentwood
> Since I was a student of a junior high school, I was taught that
>
> But according to the [physical theory]
>
> [Mathematical statement]
There is no such thing as a physical theory that makes statements in
pure mathematics. Therefore your statement is wrong -- no matter WHAT
you subsittute in for [Mathematical statement] and [physical theory]
above.
In other words, you're wrong before you even get out of the starting
gate.
Ka-In Yen
<superkae...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 6:17 am, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > New year firework of Taipei
> > 101:http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dl1Ov_ygQzGA
>
Dear John Christiansen,
My outstanding contribution to science community is
to teach stupid physicists the vector division. Read
my page:
http://aetherdynamics.blogspot.com/2009/04/vector-by-vector-division.html
then you will realize that IQ of physicists is lower
than me.
PD
> On Dec 30, 4:51 am, "John Christiansen"
>
> <superkae...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 6:17 am, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > > New year firework of Taipei
> > > 101:http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dl1Ov_ygQzGA
>
> > I believe Ka-In Yen's problem is vector addition.
>
> Dear John Christiansen,
>
> My outstanding contribution to science community is
> to teach stupid physicists the vector division. Read
> my page:
>
>
> then you will realize that IQ of physicists is lower
> than me.
So this is about you feeling good about your IQ?
Still, the question remains: Where does relativity make the statement
"if A=B and B=C, then A>C" as you claim it does.
If it does not make that claim, or you do not know whether it makes
that claim or not, then retract the claim.
You can hang onto any perceptions of your IQ if you like. But making a
claim that you can't back up and dodging it continually only gives the
appearance that you have a personality issue that is perhaps getting
in the way of effective use of your IQ.
John Christiansen
"Ka-In Yen" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> skrev i en meddelelse
news:88bb3cee-89c1-431c...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Dear John Christiansen,
http://aetherdynamics.blogspot.com/2009/04/vector-by-vector-division.html
As any mathematician can tell you vector division is not defined, but should
you be able to come up with a definition of a vector division that works you
should be up for a Nobel prize. But if you want one in physics I'm afraid
that you'l have to leave that obsolete aether idea behind you.
PD
<superkae...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
> "Ka-In Yen" <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> skrev i en meddelelsenews:88bb3cee-89c1-431c...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30, 4:51 am, "John Christiansen"
>
> <superkae...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 6:17 am, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > > New year firework of Taipei
> > > 101:http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dl1Ov_ygQzGA
>
> > I believe Ka-In Yen's problem is vector addition.
>
> Dear John Christiansen,
>
> My outstanding contribution to science community is
> to teach stupid physicists the vector division. Read
> my page:
>
>
> then you will realize that IQ of physicists is lower
> than me.
>
> As any mathematician can tell you vector division is not defined, but should
> you be able to come up with a definition of a vector division that works you
> should be up for a Nobel prize. But if you want one in physics I'm afraid
> that you'l have to leave that obsolete aether idea behind you.
Well, actually there's no Nobel Prize for mathematics. He could try
for a Fields Medal.
John Christiansen
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:935f98ba-3d6d-4f99...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I am well aware of no Nobel prize in math, but he could be aiming for one in
physics and use his 'astonishing findings' in math applied to physics.
Ka-In Yen
>
> What on earth does this have to do with the claims of special
> relativity?
Dear PD,
According to the contemporary logic, we have the transitive law
if A=B and B=C, then A=C.
It's a responsibility of physicists to make a clear statement
that the transitive law do not apply to different frames, and
explain the reason.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
It's a responsibility of the complainer like yourself to explain
exactly what he means.
What is A? What is B? What is C?
Until you do so - nobody will help you or follow your requests. You
will remain alone in your beliefs, unless you explain them in a way
that others can understand.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Dec 30, 4:51 am, "John Christiansen"
>
> <superkae...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 6:17 am, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > > New year firework of Taipei
> > > 101:http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dl1Ov_ygQzGA
>
> > I believe Ka-In Yen's problem is vector addition.
>
> Dear John Christiansen,
>
> My outstanding contribution to science community is
> to teach stupid physicists the vector division. Read
> my page:
>
>
> then you will realize that IQ of physicists is lower
> than me.
>
No, the IQ of physicists is **above** 60.
However, your own conceit is indeed above any other mortal's.
You are a retard who thinks of himself as a genius. You are a circus
freak.
PD
You have yet to indicate WHERE in relativity there is a statement of
the form
A=B and B=C but A>C.
Could it be that you are under a mistaken impression there is a
statement of this form but you can't recall exactly what it is and
can't reproduce it to save your life?
Ka-In Yen
> On Dec 30, 3:15 pm, "John Christiansen"
>
> for a Fields Medal.
I may not meet the high standard of Fields Medal. But they should
give me a Nobel prize in physics for my outstanding discovery -- the
idiocy of physicists.
http://aetherdynamics.blogspot.com/2009/04/vector-by-vector-division.html
YBM
Aren't you sure that the idiocy you've discovered and revealed to the
world isn't yours?
eric gisse
Oh man I totally forgot you are the moron who thinks that mass is a vector.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
He is probably making all thee nonsense claims just to make you read
his web site.
PD
> On Dec 31 2009, 7:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 3:15 pm, "John Christiansen"
>
> > Well, actually there's no Nobel Prize for mathematics. He could try
> > for a Fields Medal.
>
> I may not meet the high standard of Fields Medal. But they should
> give me a Nobel prize in physics for my outstanding discovery -- the
> idiocy of physicists.
Sorry, but bashing a field doesn't generally garner special accolades
for accomplishment in that field.
This would be a little like Richard Dawkins being given an award by
the church for being such a basher of theists.
I don't know why you are fueled by such hatred. You don't even
demonstrate any understanding of the field of physics to even know
whether it is worth bashing or not. Is this a vendetta or something?
>
> http://aetherdynamics.blogspot.com/2009/04/vector-by-vector-division....
PD
Well, of course. He could have just as well said "My website proves
that the Pope is Jewish!" though.
Ka-In Yen
> On Dec 31, 6:41 am, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 11:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What on earth does this have to do with the claims of special
> > > relativity?
>
> > Dear PD,
>
> > According to the contemporary logic, we have the transitive law
>
> > if A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>
> > It's a responsibility of physicists to make a clear statement
> > that the transitive law do not apply to different frames, and
> > explain the reason.
>
> You have yet to indicate WHERE in relativity there is a statement of
> the form
> A=B and B=C but A>C.
>
This is not dodgeball. Physicists sale SR to student and get
money from their parent. It's a responsibility of physicists to
YBM
It applies. Where did you get that it don't?
Ka-In Yen
> On Dec 31 2009, 6:10 pm, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31 2009, 7:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 3:15 pm, "John Christiansen"
>
> > > Well, actually there's no Nobel Prize for mathematics. He could try
> > > for a Fields Medal.
>
> > I may not meet the high standard of Fields Medal. But they should
> > give me a Nobel prize in physics for my outstanding discovery -- the
> > idiocy of physicists.
>
> demonstrate any understanding of the field of physics to even know
> whether it is worth bashing or not. Is this a vendetta or something?
Dear PD,
I am very disappointed that you mention hatred, vendetta,
Jewish. That's your fear. I never see anti-jewish in my
country. Anti-jewish happen in Europe, but not in Taiwan.
PD
> On Jan 2, 2:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31 2009, 6:10 pm, Ka-In Yen <yenk...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31 2009, 7:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 30, 3:15 pm, "John Christiansen"
>
> > > > Well, actually there's no Nobel Prize for mathematics. He could try
> > > > for a Fields Medal.
>
> > > I may not meet the high standard of Fields Medal. But they should
> > > give me a Nobel prize in physics for my outstanding discovery -- the
> > > idiocy of physicists.
>
> > I don't know why you are fueled by such hatred. You don't even
> > demonstrate any understanding of the field of physics to even know
> > whether it is worth bashing or not. Is this a vendetta or something?
>
> Dear PD,
>
> I am very disappointed that you mention hatred, vendetta,
> Jewish.
Oh, come on. The statement about proving the Pope is Jewish and the
comment about vendettas were in two different contexts.
Please don't resort to this kind of spin management.
I've asked you a very straightforward question about what relativity
says or what you think it says. Why do you continue to avoid that
question?
PD
I do not claim that the transitive law does not apply to different
frames. YOU DO. But you haven't backed up that claim at all.
If you have some misapprehension about what relativity says, then we
can correct it easily.
Ka-In Yen
>
> > This is not dodgeball. Physicists sale SR to student and get
> > money from their parent. It's a responsibility of physicists to
> > make a clear statement that the transitive law do not apply to
> > different frames, and explain the reason.
>
> It applies. Where did you get that it don't?
Very good. I suggest that the American Institute of
Physics makes a clear statement and explains the
reason; if they have guts.
YBM
Do you wan't them to make a clear statement about the fact
that 1+1=2 holds in any frame too?
Aren't you a bit silly or very, very misguided about what SR says?
J. Clarke
Or perhaps he simply has a unique command of the English language? As in
"You keep using this word (transitive), I think it does not mean what you
think it means"?
PD
Why? Nobody ever said the transitive law doesn't apply to different
frames. Why would it be necessary to reiterate that?
Ka-In Yen
> YBM wrote:
>
> Or perhaps he simply has a unique command of the English language? As in
> "You keep using this word (transitive), I think it does not mean what you
> think it means"?
Dear J. Clarke,
Did you pass the IQ test for physicists? What's
your choice?
I invite all physicists to do the IQ test.
My assumption is that IQ of physicists is
lower than teenagers after physicists learned
the Special theory of Relativity.
IQ test for PHYSICISTS:
Taipei 101 is world's tallest skyscraper. Two
gentlemen, Duck(a teenage) and Goose (a physicist),
get the assignment to measure the height of
Taipei 101.
The teenage, Duck, use the triangle method to
measure the height of Taipei 101, and he gets
509.2 m from ground to top.
The physicist, Goose, use a special method to
measure Taipei 101, but he wont tell us the detail
of his method.
Now we have A=509.2 m measured by Duck. B is the
height of Taipei 101 which saves in the office of
101.
A=B=509.2 m
C is the height of Taipei 101 measured by Goose,
a PHYSICIST. What's C? You can choose from below:
1) C is equal to 509.2 m.
2) C is shorter than 509.2 m.
3) C is longer than 509.2 m.
YBM
...
> Taipei 101 is world's tallest skyscraper.
Not anymore...
Anyway there is still nothing related to SR in you silly little test.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Since I was a student of a junior high school, I was taught that
>
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>
> But according to the Special theory of Relativity by Mighty Einstein
>
> if A=B and B=C, then A>C.
>
> Stop teaching logic in school. Mighty Einsten proves that logic is
> totally nonsense. Logicians are criminal; they cheat my money
> since I was a student of a junior high school.
Since the only thing Einstein proved is that most Physicsts
are more Planck Wannabee Philosophers, than scientists.
And that most Logicians are confused Lewis Carrol
recurring recluses.
Which is why the 21st Century people invented Digital Books,
rather than Bohr Models. It's why they invented Light Sticks,
rather than Looking Glasses. It's why they invented Holograms,
rather
than Double Slit Experiments. It why they invented Atomic Clock
Wristwatches,
rather than Ultraviolet Rays. It's why they invented Laser Disks,
rather than Spectro-Scopes. It's why they invented Multiplexed Fiber
Optics.
and Flat Screen Software Debuggers, rather than Green's Functions.
It's why they invented Flash Memory, rather than Goedel's Theorem.
It's why they invented USB, rather than rain.
It's why they invented GPS, rather than Topology.
It's why they invented Blue Ray, rather than Fortran.
It's why they invented XML, rather than FFTs.
It's why they invented Distributed Processing Software,
rather than Light Bulbs.
It's why they invented HDTV, rather than FFTs.
It's why they invented Desktop Publishing, rather than trains.
It's why they invented the History Channel, rather than Internet.
It's why they invented Cyber Batteries, rather than AT&T.
It's why they invented Emulators, rather than Vacuum Tubes.
It's why they invented Home Broadband rather than Complexity Theory.
It's why they invented All-In-One Printers, rather than Diagonal
Proofs.
It's why they invented data fusion, rather than the Uncertainty
Principle.
Ka-In Yen
> Ka-In Yen a crit :
> ...
>
> > Taipei 101 is world's tallest skyscraper.
>
> Not anymore...
Thank you for correction.
> Anyway there is still nothing related to SR in you silly little test.
If my assumption is confirmed, then they should give
me another Nobel prize in physics.
For your reference:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance/index.html#L4958
YBM
> On Jan 7, 9:34 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>> Ka-In Yen a crit :
>> ...
>>
>>> Taipei 101 is world's tallest skyscraper.
>> Not anymore...
>
> Thank you for correction.
You're welcome.
>> Anyway there is still nothing related to SR in you silly little test.
>
> If my assumption is confirmed, then they should give
> me another Nobel prize in physics.
I don't think so. How could someone who do not understand SR say
anything significant in physics?
> For your reference:
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance/index.html#L4958
Still unrelated to your point. You've never expressed really what your
point is, anyway.
Ka-In Yen
> Ka-In Yen a écrit :
>
> > If my assumption is confirmed, then they should give
> > me another Nobel prize in physics.
>
> I don't think so. How could someone who do not understand SR say
> anything significant in physics?
Another reference for you:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1126480
YBM
> On Jan 8, 1:48 pm, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> If my assumption is confirmed, then they should give
>>> me another Nobel prize in physics.
>> I don't think so. How could someone who do not understand SR say
>> anything significant in physics?
>
> Another reference for you:
> http://www.jstor.org/pss/1126480
Still unrelated: not a single word there concerns SR.