When negative numbers are real
Nick
Real numbers represent quantities. Negative numbers are
only relative to greater values than their absolutes.
The so called "below" zero can only be real in taking away from the
positives and only if their absolute values are less than or equal to
the positives(reals) that they are being taken
away from.
Jim Spriggs
>
When negative numbers are real is always, because "negative" only
applies to real numbers.
> You can't take away from nothing!
> Real numbers represent quantities.
So far as pure mathematics is concerned, real numbers don't represent
anything. They just _are_.
When mathematics is applied real numbers may be used to represent
quantities ("model" seems to be the word preferred over "represent") and
in that case what you do with them will depend on what you are
modelling. Some things modelled by real numbers may not be
(appropriately) modelled by negative numbers.
> Negative numbers are
> only relative to greater values than their absolutes.
> The so called "below" zero can only be real in taking away from the
> positives and only if their absolute values are less than or equal to
> the positives(reals) that they are being taken
> away from.
--
I don't know who you are Sir, or where you come from,
but you've done me a power of good.
Uncle Al
>
> You can't take away from nothing!
Doncha just love non-commutative algebras?
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
mensa...@aol.com
Nick wrote:
> You can't take away from nothing!
I hate to spoil your crackpot rant, but that happens to
be true, so you should find another subject to troll about.
> Real numbers represent quantities. Negative numbers are
> only relative to greater values than their absolutes.
> The so called "below" zero
Oh, I see. You are so stupid you think that "nothing" means 0.
"Nothing" doesn't have a value, 0 or anything else.
Anything added to nothing or taken away from nothing results
in nothing.
1 + nothing = nothing
nothing - 1 = nothing
Anything compared to nothing is FALSE, including comparing
nothing to nothing.
1 < nothing is FALSE
1 = nothing is FALSE
1 > nothing is FALSE
nothing < nothing is FALSE
nothing = nothing is FALSE
nothing > nothing is FALSE
> can only be real in taking away from the
> positives and only if their absolute values are less than or equal to
> the positives(reals) that they are being taken
> away from.
99 bottles of beer on the wall,
99 bottles of beer.
If NULL of those bottles should happen to fall,
NULL bottles of beer on the wall.
donsto...@hotmail.com
nonconstructivistically from the real world.
mensa...@aol.com
donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ah, yes, the sorry results of when mathematics is divorced
> nonconstructivistically from the real world.
"Sorry results"? You think "nothing" SHOULD be 0?
So when I try to determine the elevation of the water
table above sea level
WaterTableElevation (MSL) = TopOfCasingReference - DepthToWater
for a well I DIDN'T measure, I should should simply use 0?
405 - 0 = 405
which implies the site is under water since the water
table appears to be flush with the top of the well
casing which sticks up from the ground surface by
three feet.
Whereas the correct interpretation of "nothing"
405 - NULL = NULL
tells me (correctly) that the water table elevation at
this point is unknown and that will cause the contour
map generator to interpolate around this point rather
than draw the sorry conclusion that the site is flooded.
Jim Spriggs
>
> Whereas the correct interpretation of "nothing"
>
> 405 - NULL = NULL
>
> tells me (correctly) that the water table elevation at
> this point is unknown
I don't know about the people who are concerned with what you are doing,
but for me claimimng that
"nothing", "NULL" and "unknown"
all mean the same seems a bit confusing.
mensa...@aol.com
Jim Spriggs wrote:
> "mensa...@aol.compost" wrote:
>
> >
> > Whereas the correct interpretation of "nothing"
> >
> > 405 - NULL = NULL
> >
> > tells me (correctly) that the water table elevation at
> > this point is unknown
>
> I don't know about the people who are concerned with what you are doing,
> but for me claimimng that
>
> "nothing",
A vague concept that confuses fools like Nick.
> "NULL"
The proper concept of "nothing" as defined in a SQL database.
> and "unknown"
The real world implication of the proper concept of "nothing".
The water table table elevation itself exists, the measurement
of that elevation does not. The non-existence of a measurement
does not imply the non-existence of the elevation.
A measurement of NULL means the elevation is unknown yet exists.
Therefore, the proper recourse is to interpolate rather than
use a number that is flat out wrong.
>
> all mean the same seems a bit confusing.
It is and causes much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst
those who do not understand the concepts and yet expect me
to retrieve their data for them.
Luckily for them, they have a resource who doesn't sit in an
ivory tower fretting over how math relates to the real world.
Gregory L. Hansen
The only point to ponder is that you seem to think negative numbers are
unique in not being something physical.
--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894
Robert J. Kolker
You have a very constipated notion of subtraction.
Bob Kolker
>
Virgil
> You can't take away from nothing!
If positive is forwards then negative is backwards.
Peter Webb
"Bob" <grim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128119322....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The set of reals is the set of numbers which are not complex or
> imaginary.
And I suppose you define "numbers" as being the set of Real numbers, complex
numbers, and imaginary numbers?
The set of wombats is the set of animals which are not things other than
wombats.
Proginoskes
Nick wrote:
> You can't take away from nothing! [...]
Call the I.R.S. (Internal Revenue Service) and tell them that. And tape
the conversation, so I can laugh at it later.
--- Christopher Heckman
ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
"Bob" <grim...@gmail.com> writes:
>The set of reals is the set of numbers which are not complex or
>imaginary.
That's not true. All real numbers are also complex numbers, and all
imaginary numbers are also complex numbers.
Derek Holt.
Schoenfeld
Nick wrote:
[...]
> Negative numbers are
> only relative to greater values than their absolutes.
That's false. Unlike the positive numbers, the negative numbers aren't
closed over multiplication.
[...]
David Kastrup
> You can't take away from nothing!
You don't fear brain surgery, I guess.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Bill Dubuque
Math without negative numbers would be grotesquely convoluted.
As a simple example, try to give a general formula for obtaining
the (positive) roots of a quadratic equation without making any
intermediate use of negative numbers. Ditto for real roots
without using complex numbers.
Whatever one's ontological commitments, one cannot argue
with the fact that use of negative numbers serves to greatly
simply the derivation of many results about positive numbers,
just as complex numbers do for real numbers, etc.
Almost all extensions of number systems were motivated by
analogous considerations. In fact many of these extensions
are special cases of general types of "closures", which serve
to "complete" the system in some way or another, with the
consequence that certain classes of problems become simpler.
For further discussion on this see my prior post
http://google.com/groups?selm=y8zohi4mrfs.fsf_-_%40martigny.ai.mit.edu
--Bill Dubuque
donsto...@hotmail.com
don't exist.
Gregory L. Hansen
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Try to tell someone owing money on a mortage that negative numbers
>don't exist.
>
To say that negative numbers don't exist is a red herring. Negative
numbers are no more real than positive numbers. And no less real. But
debt can be represented by negative numbers, just as assets are
commonly represented by positive numbers. That doesn't mean debt is
inherently a negative number-- it's just a convention to associate it with
a negative number. And it doesn't mean an asset is inherently a positive
number-- it's just a convention to associate it with a positive number.
--
"Awareness means not just a vague, comfortable, fuzzy feeling. It means
explicit knowledge of current conditions." -- NBSR Radiation Safety
Training
Roger Beresford
>. All real numbers are also complex numbers, and all
imaginary numbers are also complex numbers.
No! Real numbers can be embedded in the complex numbers, but that does
not make them complex.
Integers are equivalence relations on pairs of natural numbers Z ~
{n_i, n_j} ~ {n_x, n_y} iff n_i plus n_y = n_x plus n_j; their
premature introduction allows mathematicians to conflate subtraction
with negation, and to assume that only "fields" matter.
Unsigned rationals are equivalence relations on ordered pairs of
natural numbers (Landau) Q+ ~ {n_i, n_j} ~ {n_x, n_y} iff n_i times n_y
= n_x times n_j.
Unsigned continuous numbers (the half-line including zero, I call them
"primal numbers") are the completion of the unsigned rational numbers
by some axiom of continuity.
Real numbers R are equivalence relations on pairs of primal numbers
{p_i,p_j} and include positives, negatives, and "real zero". The choice
R={p_i,p_j} and -R={p_j,p_i} is an axiom that defines "-". The rule "-"
times "-" = "+" arises from the use of the C2 group as the
multiplication table for pairs of primals.
Complex numbers are equivalence relations on pairs of real numbers;
multiplication of four primals using the C4 group gives the rule "i"
times "i" = "-", and leads to the polar representation of complex
numbers as the Argand diagram, x^2+y^2 = r^2, theta = Arctan[y/x].
Multiplication using the Klein group, K, gives the rules "i" times "i"
= "+", "k" times "k" = "+", "ik" times "ik"="+" and the hyperbolic
representation of "Study numbers", x^2-y^2=u^2, phi=Arctanh[y/x]. Both
the x and y axes have real coefficients. According to Derek's logic,
"All real numbers are also Study numbers"!
Negative numbers are always real, by the definition of real numbers.
Real numbers (including negatives and real zero) are a convenient
representation (that involves a loss of information) on pairs of primal
numbers when their multiplication table has 2-fold (C2) symmetry. K has
C2C2 symmetry, and so has two real coefficients. C4 has C2 as a
symmetry and as a factor group, and so it has a real coefficient,
together with a complex coefficient represented by a real number
multiplied by the sign "i".
Roger Beresford.
"Oh, the little more,and how much it is!
Oh, the little less, and what a world away!"
(Robert Browning.) (Read Oh as "nought"?)
.
jgr...@seol.net.au
donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Try to tell someone owing money on a mortage that negative numbers
> don't exist.
Wall St. c1928
The sidewalk littered with the corpses of those who had thought that
way previously. THEY discovered, to their demise, that in nature, you
cannot take 3 coins away, when only two existed.
I have a long standing offer to bare my arse on this ng, if anyone can
provide an example of a "less than nothing (zero)" entity which occurs
in nature (read reality).
In nature, there exist 1 or 0 ONLY! (-1) refers to "less than" a
greater, and without exception, when a calculation leads to a net less
than zero result, human error is involved. (Usually an assumption based
on a false premise, or by an arbitrary coordinate from which
measurement was done was incorrectly placed).
eg Al Schwartz thinks "negative energy" is real ie that -300degK
exists
eg Dinky has yet to put his finger in the power socket, after claiming
electrons "negative"
Jim G
c'=c+v
Androcles
"jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1128320305.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
and now I can't write it.
Androcles
Gregory L. Hansen
jgree...@seol.net.au <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote:
>
>donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Try to tell someone owing money on a mortage that negative numbers
>> don't exist.
>
>Wall St. c1928
>The sidewalk littered with the corpses of those who had thought that
>way previously. THEY discovered, to their demise, that in nature, you
>cannot take 3 coins away, when only two existed.
>
>I have a long standing offer to bare my arse on this ng, if anyone can
>provide an example of a "less than nothing (zero)" entity which occurs
>in nature (read reality).
>In nature, there exist 1 or 0 ONLY! (-1) refers to "less than" a
>greater, and without exception, when a calculation leads to a net less
I have -3 coins in my pocket because, unwilling to be straight-jacketed by
mindless conformity, I am comfortable with associating each coin with the
left side of the number line rather than the right side.
The only reason to bare your arse on this newsgroup is because you think
positive numbers have some kind of physical reality that negative numbers
don't. Neither have a physical reality. They are associated with stuff
by human decisions. You can count with positive integers once you decide
that something needs to be counted and what criteria define a unit, but
they don't have to be positive or real. That's up to you.
--
"Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of
Congress... But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
jgr...@seol.net.au
So you believe in negative distance?
You also believe in addition, such as (+1)+(-1)=0 ?
So as a God-fearing mathamerazzi, what is the distance from (-1) on the
x axis
to (+1) ??????????????????
Jim G
c'=c+v
Gregory L. Hansen
Do you think a distance of +2 is any more "physical" than a distance of
-2? It's a convention to assign positive numbers to distance! Distance
doesn't intrinsically have a number, it's just a geometrical property.
The association of numbers with a distance is not physical, it's all
human.
--
"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and win
by experience."
jgr...@seol.net.au
Only fools can't understand that driving in the (-) direction on the x
axis doesn't fill the petrol tank. Nature will not allow arbitrary
human signage to intervene with physical realities; believe it or not!
Jim G
c'=c+v
Sam Wormley
> Only fools can't understand that driving in the (-) direction on the x
> axis doesn't fill the petrol tank. Nature will not allow arbitrary
> human signage to intervene with physical realities; believe it or not!
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
>
However, in many cars driving in the (-) direction on the x axis
lowers the odometer reading!
abe.buc...@gmail.com
Nick wrote:
> You can't take away from nothing!
> Real numbers represent quantities. Negative numbers are
> only relative to greater values than their absolutes.
> The so called "below" zero can only be real in taking away from the
> positives and only if their absolute values are less than or equal to
> the positives(reals) that they are being taken
> away from.
Real numbers don't represent just any quantities, they represent points
on the real number line. Negative numbers represent not just points on
the line, but a paticular direction relative to a certain point named
0. Just like anything in math - it has a meaning if we *give* it one.
That's why you see so much fuss over definitions. Now if you don't like
the language they use in terms or negatives then feel free to make of
your own system of axioms and definitions without them, but in the
meantime there is nothing strange or odd or boring about the status quo
and I'll happily continue to subscribe to it thank you. :)
Gregory L. Hansen
Oh, I believe it. But you seem convinced that arbitrary human signage is
a physical phenomenon!
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
jgr...@seol.net.au
"EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it!
WORMLEY SOLVES OIL CRISIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jgr...@seol.net.au
All well and fine! Just understand that after your journey, when
measurement or calculation shows a net (- miles travelled), that shows
where you ARE, as opposed to the reality of the distance travelled.
All this doesn't matter much, UNTIL you look at the Lorentz Transforms
for length, and discover that he REVERSED the SIGNAGE halfway through
(ref direction of train and light pulse). That is a slight-of-hand
trick which amounts to FRAUD. The LT's are crap, and all the
Einsteinania "developed" from it.
Jim G
c'=c+v
Bilge
Then at least you won't have to worry about finding something
else in which to soak your head prior to posting.
donsto...@hotmail.com
Human Language. The most robust system around. Has an answer to
everything. The theory/language of everything. I likes it.
donsto...@hotmail.com
cs/abstaction/abstraction/
donsto...@hotmail.com
Playing with the form of posting, not its content, a la Hofstadter.
jgr...@seol.net.au
donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Post done only to force this guy back to the top.
>
> Playing with the form of posting, not its content, a la Hofstadter.
Never mind! Even Bilge was forced to acknowledge that there is NO
negative (less than zero) distance in nature.
How the matheramazzi wish to dream and fantasize in mathonderland has
F*A* to do with reality.
Jim G
c=c'+v
Androcles
If someone steals my real car and I can't use it, an imaginary car
or a negative car are no use to me.
If someone steals the real positive number 2 and I can't use it,
a negative number 2 is no use to me either.
Until then I'll go on using the real number 2 and the real number -2.
Androcles.
jgr...@seol.net.au
Fine by me! I maintain that a car which was never built, cannot be
stolen.
The reality in nature being, that (-) should be regarded always as
"less than", other than for just tagging a position. When a net
calculated result yields a (-) numeral answer, bells should loudly
ring, because a FALSE ASSUMPTION has been triggered.
As for your 2 and -2, what is their distance apart on the x axis? Is it
(+2)+(-2) or 4 (+4) ?
Jim G
c=c'+v
Androcles
I shall shortly walk +100 yards to the store along the x-axis, purchase
ingredients for my lunch and walk -100 yards home again. Total distance
zero.
Both distances are real. Then I'll make and eat lunch, pondering on how
stupid
some people can be (but not for long).
Androcles
jgr...@seol.net.au
For what need is the lunch? If you haven't travelled any distance, you
wont have used any energy! (eat fish -> good brain food)
Jim G
c'=c+v
donsto...@hotmail.com
ewe.
Androcles
I get hungry. You can go without, I have no objection.
| If you haven't travelled any distance, you
| wont have used any energy!
E = 1/2 mv^2.
v = dx/dt
-v = -dx/dt
Sorry you don't understand math or physics, go without lunch.
I know how to feed myself.
| (eat fish -> good brain food)
To obtain fish, walk past store +15 yards, then walk -115 yards home
OR
walk +2000 yards to river, cast bait, wait, get rain-soaked, catch fish,
walk -2000 yards home, gut and debone fish, have lunch late in the
evening
(the tide was out), die the following day from pneumonia or in 20 years
from
mercury poisoning.
Sorry you don't know much biochemistry, but you do seem to be conversant
with old wives' tales.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4632
In 1996 the American Heart Association released its Science Advisory,
"Fish Consumption, Fish Oil, Lipids and Coronary Heart Disease." Since
then important new findings have been reported about the benefits of
omega-3 fatty acids on cardiovascular disease.
Androcles.
| Jim G
| c'=c+v
|
jgr...@seol.net.au
I'll starve! When I go fishing, the fish go to Alaska :-(
What I am trying to get to, is the establishment of distance on the x
axis
(the +2 and -2 positions). Then I consider points A, B on the axis,
which are subjected to exactly the same motion (simultaneous
accelleration for the same time period), and now be convinced by the
DHR's that A', B' are closer together than formerly. So long as you
ignore the HISTORY of the motions which got you home from the shop,
that simple omission allows the DHR crap to continue.
This again is a lead into Lorentz (Fitzgerald) contraction, which even
a cursory study shows a REVERSAL of signage (direction) halfway through
the mathematical "proof". WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim G
c'=c+v
>
> | (eat fish -> good brain food)
> To obtain fish, walk past store +15 yards, then walk -115 yards home
> OR
> walk +2000 yards to river, cast bait, wait, get rain-soaked, catch fish,
> walk -2000 yards home, gut and debone fish, have lunch late in the
> evening
> (the tide was out), die the following day from pneumonia or in 20 years
> from
> mercury poisoning.
>
> Sorry you don't know much biochemistry, but you do seem to be conversant
> with old wives' tales.
> http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4632
> In 1996 the American Heart Association released its Science Advisory,
> "Fish Consumption, Fish Oil, Lipids and Coronary Heart Disease." Since
> then important new findings have been reported about the benefits of
> omega-3 fatty acids on cardiovascular disease.
> Androcles.
About the same time, three women from Hobart vowed to eat shark every
meal for a year, as a rebuttal to scare-mongering about mercury
content. AFAIK, they are all perfectly well
JG
Eric Gisse
Simply because the problem is that you are an idiot without the
simplest grasp of algebra. Your constant whining about neagtive numbers
is evidence enough of that.
jgr...@seol.net.au
Sign the following:
"It is quite permissable to arbitrarily reverse signage regarding
direction within a mathematical exercise"
................
Eric Gisse
.......or fuck off back to the sand pit!
Jim G
c'=c+v
Androcles
Awww... shame. Try "bait".
You've been using negative bait, which is not real.
|
| What I am trying to get to, is the establishment of distance on the x
| axis
| (the +2 and -2 positions).
I thought you said the -2 position wasn't real. I'm confused now.
| Then I consider points A, B on the axis,
| which are subjected to exactly the same motion (simultaneous
| accelleration for the same time period), and now be convinced by the
| DHR's that A', B' are closer together than formerly.
Ah, well, that's what DHR's do, you see. They are ALL phuckwits, but
-2 is as real as +2.
| So long as you
| ignore the HISTORY of the motions which got you home from the shop,
| that simple omission allows the DHR crap to continue.
Then send all the DHR's to Alaska.
When I go fishing, I use attractive bait.
I caught a DHR but it was a little one so I threw it back.
This is the technique:
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:2005100917...@emu.uq.edu.au...
One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel
plate
capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d
where e is the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance
between
the plates.
Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.
I wrote:
Ok, Now reduce the area to a point, say one atom at the end of a needle.
Apply some large voltage (say 1,000,000V) between the needle and a
plate (any area). Start with d large, say 1 kilometre. Gradually
reduce d.
What happens?
Nieminen:
Anyway, I'd say that about the same thing would happen if you brought
them together in empty space as if you brought them together in air,
until
the fields became large enough to get fun stuff like arcing, ion wind
etc.
I wrote:
You would, huh?
That ends the discussion, then, my TV needs a vacuum to operate.
| This again is a lead into Lorentz (Fitzgerald) contraction,
No such animal, and anyway it's the cuckoo contraction.
which even
| a cursory study shows a REVERSAL of signage (direction) halfway
through
| the mathematical "proof". WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because all DHR's are phuckwits. Send 'em to Alaska or have 'em for
breakfast.
Androcles
See, now that fish has gone to Alaska. You must use the bait the fish
likes.
Of course it's only a little one, I'd throw it back.
To catch a criminal, think like a criminal. To catch a DHR, think like
one.
To do that, study the subject. Start here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Androcles.
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Because all DHR's are phuckwits. Send 'em to Alaska or have 'em for
> breakfast.
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
Google Groups
group:sci.physics author:Androcles
2890 examples of your utter stooopidity - a garbage midden of
ineducable faith-based spew and frank psychosis.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Uncle Al
[snip]
> See, now that fish has gone to Alaska. You must use the bait the fish
> likes.
> Of course it's only a little one, I'd throw it back.
> To catch a criminal, think like a criminal. To catch a DHR, think like
> one.
> Androcles.
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:435117EB...@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles posted the
orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical and
vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
done. They literally drool foaming spit.
They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and attempt
assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place. What
do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
are.
The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation, public
disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
LITLE PEOPLE LIKE UNCLE SNIPCRAP HATE THAT and will
throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
They cannot prevent the inevitable. The disclosure proceeds and the
final knowledge will be had. A null result is the historic Gold
Standard
of performance, but the truth is a Platinum result. The net result is
the
trivially reproducible falsification of Special Relativity in existing
mathematics
all over the world. Professionals call this "science." We don't care
what
god-fearing witch burners and wog haters call it.
Credit for a successful disclosure cannot be stolen by an unsuccessful
rogue
researcher.
It's happening. Let the universe decide.
Androcles.
Androcles
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
jgr...@seol.net.au
Perhaps while there, lil'Eric will run into uncle al, who will teach
him how to write his name? Funny he caught onto all the other crap, but
can't do that.
> Of course it's only a little one, I'd throw it back.
> To catch a criminal, think like a criminal. To catch a DHR, think like
> one.
Oh! You mean have FAITH: "faith", "the ability to believe bullshit"
(such as the speed of light is constant for all observers)
Will it bring me everlasting life?
FYI ref math: (-v)^2 = (+v)^2
Still think those LT's are correct?
Jim G
c'=c+v
Androcles
No, but it will bring you understanding of the stupidity of others and
teach you to pity them as you scorn the stooopid phuckwits, as I do.
After all, it is funny when some idiot steps on a banana skin and
breaks his leg because he didn't look where he was going, but you
still help him up to hobble to the hospital, stepping on his toes and
kicking his shins saying "Oops, sorry, did that hurt?", laughing all
the way.
A smart phuckwit will avoid you, a REALLY dumb phuckwit will
invite more kicks. When the phuckwit is as brain dead as moortel or
Auntie Alice and can't even feel the kicks, it becomes boring.
|
| FYI ref math: (-v)^2 = (+v)^2
| Still think those LT's are correct?
The phuckwits do, so drop banana skins in their path. Pretend
they are real, and pull the rug out from under them. It's no good
saying "Look, a banana skin!", they'll step around it.
Androcles.
Autymn D. C.
> donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Try to tell someone owing money on a mortage that negative numbers
> > don't exist.
>
> Wall St. c1928
> The sidewalk littered with the corpses of those who had thought that
> way previously. THEY discovered, to their demise, that in nature, you
> cannot take 3 coins away, when only two existed.
>
> I have a long standing offer to bare my arse on this ng, if anyone can
> provide an example of a "less than nothing (zero)" entity which occurs
> in nature (read reality).
> In nature, there exist 1 or 0 ONLY! (-1) refers to "less than" a
> greater, and without exception, when a calculation leads to a net less
> than zero result, human error is involved. (Usually an assumption based
> on a false premise, or by an arbitrary coordinate from which
> measurement was done was incorrectly placed).
> eg Al Schwartz thinks "negative energy" is real ie that -300degK
> exists
> eg Dinky has yet to put his finger in the power socket, after claiming
> electrons "negative"
longstanding
300 K
Kelvins are not degrees. Zero does not exist. Zero is not a number,
if infinity is not. (The first Peano axiom is wrong.) The above
temperature refers to a vector energy, not scalar.
If you want a real negative entity, look up Guth's cosmogonic theory
(mostly real) or Hawking radiation (hardly real). If you want to know
the effects of negative entities, read my treatise on
free_energy@eGroups where I debunk a bunch of scientists and
bystanders.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> See, now that fish has gone to Alaska. You must use the bait the fish
> likes.
> Of course it's only a little one, I'd throw it back.
> To catch a criminal, think like a criminal. To catch a DHR, think like
> one.
> To do that, study the subject. Start here:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Stop cascading, illiterate cretinous scum. The link says "Object not
found"!
jgr...@seol.net.au
Hint: zero is NOTHING- there is "nothing" <-- NOTHING
>
> If you want a real negative entity, look up Guth's cosmogonic theory
> (mostly real) or Hawking radiation (hardly real). If you want to know
> the effects of negative entities, read my treatise on
> free_energy@eGroups where I debunk a bunch of scientists and
> bystanders.
Would you, Guth, or Hawking, care to put your finger in the power
socket?
Shouldn't be a problem, if those electrons are REALLY "less than zero"
(Hint: (-) is meaningless/imaginary, when referring to 0; as a "less
than" something/number greater, quite useful)
Jim G
c'=c+v