Re: New theory: Space is not curved. It is logarithmic.
Eric Gisse
> This is just a theory.
>
> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> really logarithmic?
No.
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> This is just a theory.
>>
>> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> really logarithmic?
>
>No.
I thought they had locked you up Geesey.
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
You can burn all yer books!
Space is logarithmic.
Sue...
> This is just a theory.
>
> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> really logarithmic?
>
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Indeed. It in not only possible, it is the heart and soul
of being at some distance from something you dislike or being
close to something you like.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
Sue...
Mike
> This is just a theory.
>
> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> really logarithmic?
Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
for a long time would not work at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
You are an empirical fool.
Mike
Igor
Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> You can burn all yer books!
> Space is logarithmic.
How are logarithms related to commutators?
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> This is just a theory.
>>
>> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> really logarithmic?
>
>
>Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
>the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
>for a long time would not work at all.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
>
>You are an empirical fool.
>
>Mike
Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
Nice to see you are dabbling with some of the things we physicists take for
granted.
>
>Sue...
YBM
> Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
I'd guess you've just dicovered the Log function two days ago...
Anyway, you could have a look at Poincaré disk :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_disk_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 00:57:57 -0700, "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
> >>
> >> HW.
> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> >>
> >> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
> >
> >Indeed. It in not only possible, it is the heart and soul
> >of being at some distance from something you dislike or being
> >close to something you like.
> >
> >http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
>
> Nice to see you are dabbling with some of the things we physicists take for
> granted.
HA HA HA HA HA
In what way are *you* a physicist?
You do not have a degree in physics. Your employment, if you even are,
is unrelated to physics. You sit and dictate physics to physicists and
folks studying physics without actually taking the time to understand
why physics today is what it is.
>
> >
> >Sue...
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> You can burn all yer books!
> Space is logarithmic.
Just like time has three unseen dimensions, right Henri?
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 07:05:29 -0700, "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >
> >
> >Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
> >the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
> >for a long time would not work at all.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
> >
> >You are an empirical fool.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
Oh this is going to be fun. Henri just read about the log function and
had this great epiphany. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Tell us Henri, tell us about the log function.
When you say "space is logarithmatic", do you mean the real valued log
or the complex valued log? How do you address branch points? Do you
even understand what I just said?
Eric Gisse
YBM wrote:
> Henri Wilson a écrit :
> > Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
>
> I'd guess you've just dicovered the Log function two days ago...
It certaintly is amazing how often the "applied mathematican" learns
about a brand new topic that I already know and then thinks he did the
impossible by learning it.
>
> Anyway, you could have a look at Poincaré disk :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_disk_model
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
If he said "space is hyperbolic" he would not be nearly as wrong. At
least one could make an argument for space being hyperbolic. Except one
of the arguments would be special relativity, which would probably make
his brain explode due to cognitive dissonance.
Greg Hansen
>
>>This is just a theory.
>>
>>Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>>really logarithmic?
What would it mean for distances to be logarithmic? Logarithmic in what
variable? We presume that a ruler here would also work over there. If
space were logarithmic, would that mean a ruler would measure one foot
here and 1.44 feet over there?
Sorcerer
"Greg Hansen" <glha...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:450228C2...@tcq.net...
He's off his rocker, groping at straws to prop up his theory.
He wrote a program to model orbits, but his orbits are all
seen edge-on so he computes distances to stars as 0.3 light years.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Androcles.
Mike
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 07:05:29 -0700, "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >
> >
> >Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
> >the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
> >for a long time would not work at all.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
> >
> >You are an empirical fool.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
A function has a domain and a range. In this particular case you are
talking about, what is the domain and what is the range?
Mike
Greg Hansen
That doesn't sound promising.
Sorcerer
It may be senile dementia, he wasn't this bad seven years ago. Not
much we can do for that, unfortunately.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles
Henri Wilson
wrote:
You keep out of this...you don't understand.
>
>Androcles.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
At my universities we always regarded engineers as failed physicists..
Henri Wilson
There, see!
I told you so!
Henri Wilson
...poor boy...... hasn't improved.....
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2006 07:05:29 -0700, "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>>
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> This is just a theory.
>> >>
>> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> >> really logarithmic?
>> >
>> >
>> >Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
>> >the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
>> >for a long time would not work at all.
>> >
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
>> >
>> >You are an empirical fool.
>> >
>> >Mike
>>
>> Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
>
>
>A function has a domain and a range. In this particular case you are
>talking about, what is the domain and what is the range?
Are you aware that all human senses are logarithmic (regarding magnitudes)?
Why not our concept of space?
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:mes7g2lttqfc1l6o4...@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 03:05:33 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Greg Hansen" <glha...@tcq.net> wrote in message
| >news:450228C2...@tcq.net...
| >|> Henri Wilson wrote:
| >| >
| >| >>This is just a theory.
| >| >>
| >| >>Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we
| >measure are
| >| >>really logarithmic?
| >|
| >| What would it mean for distances to be logarithmic? Logarithmic in
what
| >| variable? We presume that a ruler here would also work over there. If
| >| space were logarithmic, would that mean a ruler would measure one foot
| >| here and 1.44 feet over there?
| >
| >He's off his rocker, groping at straws to prop up his theory.
| >He wrote a program to model orbits, but his orbits are all
| >seen edge-on so he computes distances to stars as 0.3 light years.
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
|
| You keep out of this...you don't understand.
I WROTE the book.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
| Space is logarithmic.
Go back to golf, try to get a birdie on a par 1.6094379.
Androcles
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
We regard physicists as failed engineers, but then, you are all upside
down in Oz.
We let them write papers, we don't let them build anything.
Steven Hawking was found guilty of social injustice from Sussex U
when he refused a beer I offered, and now has stay in Cambridge.
Incredible, an Englishman refusing a free pint! How stupid is that?
Androcles.
Eric Gisse
You know what is funny, Henri?
When I first started towards my degree, you were in this newsgroup
posting dumb stuff.
You are still posting dumb stuff. Routinely, your latest 'inspiration'
is something I have already seen before (The Poincare disc is the
latest example) and understand much better than you do.
When I graduate, you will STILL be on this newsgroup...posting dumb
shit.
Unlike yourself I am actually dedicating serious time to learning
physics. Unlike yourself, I can actually do it! Isn't that funny?
Oh I'm sure you think highly of yourself regardless.
You say you have a degree in applied mathematics, yet my knowledge of
mathematics is superior to yours and I'm not even done with my BS yet -
why is that?
You were all proud of your 3 dimensions of time...what happened to
those, Henri?
In all the years you have been posting to this newsgroup, has one
person taken one of these 'big ideas' you love to believe you have and
made something out of them? An experiment, or at least an article
published in a peer reviewed journal crediting you?
Have you yet learned special relativity, or does the concept still
...elude... you? Does the idea of learning enough mathematics to have a
shot at learning general relativity still daunt you? Have you given up
completely on quantum mechanics?
Is Androcles still the only person on this newsgroup who even
approaches 'taking you seriously' ?
Hasn't improved, indeed. This is me laughing at you, Henri.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Not bad for a beginner.
You don't need 1 million points, 30000 is ample....and you don't need a filter
if you use double precision numbers and my method of generating ellipses. I use
500 divisions for printing because that's enough to display the curves quite
smoothly over two or three orbits..
If you could understand why only edge on orbits are required for all of this,
your task would be a lot easier.
If you accepted that multiple images are rarely if ever created and observed,
you might also realise that my unification theory is the only sound explanation
for this. (apart from log space)
>Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
I have shown how it can be produced in a number of ways...but there is not
enough info in the curve to permit a definite explanation.
>
>| Space is logarithmic.
>
>Go back to golf, try to get a birdie on a par 1.6094379.
I once had a square root on a par four...about 9 pm.
>Androcles
>
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
You can burn all yer books!
Space is logarithmic.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2006 18:12:51 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
>> >
>> >If he said "space is hyperbolic" he would not be nearly as wrong. At
>> >least one could make an argument for space being hyperbolic. Except one
>> >of the arguments would be special relativity, which would probably make
>> >his brain explode due to cognitive dissonance.
>>
>> ...poor boy...... hasn't improved.....
>
>You know what is funny, Henri?
>
>When I first started towards my degree, you were in this newsgroup
>posting dumb stuff.
>
>You are still posting dumb stuff.
..and you'r still starting towards your degree, Geesey....
>Routinely, your latest 'inspiration'
>is something I have already seen before (The Poincare disc is the
>latest example) and understand much better than you do.
>
>When I graduate, you will STILL be on this newsgroup...posting dumb
>shit.
When you graduate, Geesey, pigs and green elephants will be flying through the
sky...
>Unlike yourself I am actually dedicating serious time to learning
>physics. Unlike yourself, I can actually do it! Isn't that funny?
>
>Oh I'm sure you think highly of yourself regardless.
>
>You say you have a degree in applied mathematics, yet my knowledge of
>mathematics is superior to yours and I'm not even done with my BS yet -
>why is that?
You have never written an equation here Geesey.
It is obvious you don't have any natural maths ability.
>
>You were all proud of your 3 dimensions of time...what happened to
>those, Henri?
That's right. There are three time subdimensions.
You wont find that in a book..and they wont teach it at universities....yet!
>
>In all the years you have been posting to this newsgroup, has one
>person taken one of these 'big ideas' you love to believe you have and
>made something out of them? An experiment, or at least an article
>published in a peer reviewed journal crediting you?
>
>Have you yet learned special relativity, or does the concept still
>...elude... you? Does the idea of learning enough mathematics to have a
>shot at learning general relativity still daunt you? Have you given up
>completely on quantum mechanics?
>
>Is Androcles still the only person on this newsgroup who even
>approaches 'taking you seriously' ?
Geesey, haven't you noticed? There are more people on this NG opposing Einstein
than supporting him.
>
>Hasn't improved, indeed. This is me laughing at you, Henri.
geesey you would probably laugh if you stumbled on a nude woman in the dark....
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2006 07:12:57 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 8 Sep 2006 18:12:51 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
> >> >
> >> >If he said "space is hyperbolic" he would not be nearly as wrong. At
> >> >least one could make an argument for space being hyperbolic. Except one
> >> >of the arguments would be special relativity, which would probably make
> >> >his brain explode due to cognitive dissonance.
> >>
> >> ...poor boy...... hasn't improved.....
> >
> >You know what is funny, Henri?
> >
> >When I first started towards my degree, you were in this newsgroup
> >posting dumb stuff.
> >
> >You are still posting dumb stuff.
>
> ..and you'r still starting towards your degree, Geesey....
Incorrect, Henri. I'm well on my way.
>
> >Routinely, your latest 'inspiration'
> >is something I have already seen before (The Poincare disc is the
> >latest example) and understand much better than you do.
> >
> >When I graduate, you will STILL be on this newsgroup...posting dumb
> >shit.
>
> When you graduate, Geesey, pigs and green elephants will be flying through the
> sky...
Think so?
>
> >Unlike yourself I am actually dedicating serious time to learning
> >physics. Unlike yourself, I can actually do it! Isn't that funny?
> >
> >Oh I'm sure you think highly of yourself regardless.
> >
> >You say you have a degree in applied mathematics, yet my knowledge of
> >mathematics is superior to yours and I'm not even done with my BS yet -
> >why is that?
Well, Henri?
>
> You have never written an equation here Geesey.
> It is obvious you don't have any natural maths ability.
That a fact, Henri? Why is it my knowledge of mathematics is superior
to yours?
I have tried many times to get you to participate in that little
pissing contest and you always refuse.
When I ask you to reconcile your belief that Maxwell's equations are
valid and your belief that it is possible for EM waves to propogate
with a speed c+v, you sputter and fail. Why?
When I ask you to provide the working equations to your theory, you
refuse. Why?
When I ask you to substantiate your assertion that you have a degree in
applied mathematics you always change the subject. Why?
Why don't you tell us how you decided space is logarithmic. What
precipitated your latest 'discovery'?
>
> >
> >You were all proud of your 3 dimensions of time...what happened to
> >those, Henri?
>
> That's right. There are three time subdimensions.
> You wont find that in a book..and they wont teach it at universities....yet!
Since you hail yourself as captain amazing for being the discoverer of
the "3 dimensions of time", I would have thought you would talk about
it a little more often. You never talk about that theory
anymore....why?
Did you stop posting about it in the vain hope that nobody would
remember all the bluster?
>
> >
> >In all the years you have been posting to this newsgroup, has one
> >person taken one of these 'big ideas' you love to believe you have and
> >made something out of them? An experiment, or at least an article
> >published in a peer reviewed journal crediting you?
Well, Henri?
What efforts have you made to that end?
> >
> >Have you yet learned special relativity, or does the concept still
> >...elude... you? Does the idea of learning enough mathematics to have a
> >shot at learning general relativity still daunt you? Have you given up
> >completely on quantum mechanics?
Apparently relativity still eludes your understanding.
> >
> >Is Androcles still the only person on this newsgroup who even
> >approaches 'taking you seriously' ?
>
> Geesey, haven't you noticed? There are more people on this NG opposing Einstein
> than supporting him.
Yet the people opposing relativity have shown on many occasions they do
not understand relativity. You think relativity is wrong, yet you
ignore the experimental evidence for it and refuse to learn the theory.
You didn't answer my question, either. Is Androcles still the only one
on this newsgroup who supports you in any way? I think he is.
>
> >
> >Hasn't improved, indeed. This is me laughing at you, Henri.
>
> geesey you would probably laugh if you stumbled on a nude woman in the dark....
It is called "having a sense of humor".
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Jealous tirade snipped.
| >Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
|
| I have shown how
I don't give a fuck HOW you do it, YOU can't reproduce a row of
red dots in top of http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
with a flat line along the bottom, and I can.
| >| Space is logarithmic.
| >
| >Go back to golf, try to get a birdie on a par 1.6094379.
|
| I once had a square root on a par four...about 9 pm.
You mean you got a hole-in-0.69314718 at about 8,103.084 pm?
You should publish that, time is exponential.
|
| >Androcles
Y.Porat
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> > This is just a theory.
> >
> > Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> > really logarithmic?
>
-------------------------
Bravo bump parasite for your initiative to open a nre thread
anyway idiot
space is not curved and not shmerved
the curved motion only in cases it is
is a propwerty of some basic particles
bye idiotic parrot bump parasite
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:1769g2p397dfmabt6...@4ax.com...
>| On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:09:33 GMT, "Sorcerer"
><Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
>| >| You keep out of this...you don't understand.
>| >| You can burn all yer books!
>| >
>| >I WROTE the book.
>| >
>http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
>
>
>Jealous tirade snipped.
So you're copying Andersen's tactics now, eh?
>
>| >Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
>|
>| I have shown how
>
>I don't give a fuck HOW you do it, YOU can't reproduce a row of
>red dots in top of http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
>with a flat line along the bottom, and I can.
I told you, there is nowhere near enough info in that graph to tell us
anything.
I can produce something similar in several ways.
>|
>| >Androcles
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
You can burn all yer books!
Space is logarithmic.
Henri Wilson
Don't drink so much Porat. You will become a liability....
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 2006 07:12:57 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 8 Sep 2006 18:12:51 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
>> >> >
>> >> >If he said "space is hyperbolic" he would not be nearly as wrong. At
>> >> >least one could make an argument for space being hyperbolic. Except one
>> >> >of the arguments would be special relativity, which would probably make
>> >> >his brain explode due to cognitive dissonance.
>> >>
>> >> ...poor boy...... hasn't improved.....
>> >
>> >You know what is funny, Henri?
>> >
>> >When I first started towards my degree, you were in this newsgroup
>> >posting dumb stuff.
>> >
>> >You are still posting dumb stuff.
>>
>> ..and you'r still starting towards your degree, Geesey....
>
>Incorrect, Henri. I'm well on my way.
What, repeating physics 101 for the third time?
>> >Routinely, your latest 'inspiration'
>> >is something I have already seen before (The Poincare disc is the
>> >latest example) and understand much better than you do.
>> >
>> >When I graduate, you will STILL be on this newsgroup...posting dumb
>> >shit.
>>
>> When you graduate, Geesey, pigs and green elephants will be flying through the
>> sky...
>
>Think so?
Geesey, sorry but you simply don't have what it takes. There's plenty of work
for plumbers around here. Why don't you take that up?
>> >You say you have a degree in applied mathematics, yet my knowledge of
>> >mathematics is superior to yours and I'm not even done with my BS yet -
>> >why is that?
>
>Well, Henri?
>
>>
>> You have never written an equation here Geesey.
>> It is obvious you don't have any natural maths ability.
>
>That a fact, Henri? Why is it my knowledge of mathematics is superior
>to yours?
>
>I have tried many times to get you to participate in that little
>pissing contest and you always refuse.
>
>When I ask you to reconcile your belief that Maxwell's equations are
>valid and your belief that it is possible for EM waves to propogate
>with a speed c+v, you sputter and fail. Why?
Geesey, being able to copy what a mathematician created from a text book
doesn't make YOU a mathematician. Solving Maxwell's equations might be
difficult but understanding what they mean is a bloody cinch.
>When I ask you to provide the working equations to your theory, you
>refuse. Why?
Which theory? I have many...
>
>When I ask you to substantiate your assertion that you have a degree in
>applied mathematics you always change the subject. Why?
Because I don't give a stuff whether YOU believe me or not , Geesey.
>
>Why don't you tell us how you decided space is logarithmic. What
>precipitated your latest 'discovery'?
I wanted to shut Androcles up. Sometimes he's dumber than you...
>> >You were all proud of your 3 dimensions of time...what happened to
>> >those, Henri?
>>
>> That's right. There are three time subdimensions.
>> You wont find that in a book..and they wont teach it at universities....yet!
>
>Since you hail yourself as captain amazing for being the discoverer of
>the "3 dimensions of time", I would have thought you would talk about
>it a little more often. You never talk about that theory
>anymore....why?
I am not hte firsrt person to propose three time dimensions. Other geniuses
exist too, you know Geesey.
>
>Did you stop posting about it in the vain hope that nobody would
>remember all the bluster?
You prove there are NOT three time dimensions Geesey.
How fast does time 'move', Geesey?
How do YOU define time movement?
>> >In all the years you have been posting to this newsgroup, has one
>> >person taken one of these 'big ideas' you love to believe you have and
>> >made something out of them? An experiment, or at least an article
>> >published in a peer reviewed journal crediting you?
>
>Well, Henri?
I have more fun here...and more constructive.
There wont be any establishment rigged journals in ten years.
>
>What efforts have you made to that end?
>
>> >
>> >Have you yet learned special relativity, or does the concept still
>> >...elude... you? Does the idea of learning enough mathematics to have a
>> >shot at learning general relativity still daunt you? Have you given up
>> >completely on quantum mechanics?
>
>Apparently relativity still eludes your understanding.
I sincerely hope that bullshit will always elude me.
>> >Is Androcles still the only person on this newsgroup who even
>> >approaches 'taking you seriously' ?
>>
>> Geesey, haven't you noticed? There are more people on this NG opposing Einstein
>> than supporting him.
>
>Yet the people opposing relativity have shown on many occasions they do
>not understand relativity. You think relativity is wrong, yet you
>ignore the experimental evidence for it and refuse to learn the theory.
When have I ever ignored believable experimental evidence?
>You didn't answer my question, either. Is Androcles still the only one
>on this newsgroup who supports you in any way? I think he is.
He's a silly old pommie engineer. I don't need his support.
kunzmilan
> >> > Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> > really logarithmic?
The string 1,2,4,8,16,..is logarithmic.
Now make their graphs. Correlate the second value of both strings
against the first one of the same string, the third value against the
second value, etc. Both correlations are linear with different slopes.
One question. Can logarithms with base 1 exist?
kunzmilan
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:46:33 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:1769g2p397dfmabt6...@4ax.com...
| >| On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:09:33 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
|
| >| >| You keep out of this...you don't understand.
| >| >| You can burn all yer books!
| >| >
| >| >I WROTE the book.
| >| >
|
>http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
| >
| >
| >Jealous tirade snipped.
|
| So you're copying Andersen's tactics now, eh?
|
| >
| >| >Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
| >|
| >| I have shown how
| >
| >I don't give a fuck HOW you do it, YOU can't reproduce a row of
| >red dots in top of http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| >with a flat line along the bottom, and I can.
|
| I told
I told you, you are a useless cunt.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
>
>> >> > Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> >> > really logarithmic?
>The string 0,1,2,3,4,... is linear.
>The string 1,2,4,8,16,..is logarithmic.
>Now make their graphs. Correlate the second value of both strings
>against the first one of the same string, the third value against the
>second value, etc. Both correlations are linear with different slopes.
What are you talking about?
>One question. Can logarithms with base 1 exist?
No.
1^n=1
Log 1=0
>kunzmilan
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]
> >
> >I have tried many times to get you to participate in that little
> >pissing contest and you always refuse.
> >
> >When I ask you to reconcile your belief that Maxwell's equations are
> >valid and your belief that it is possible for EM waves to propogate
> >with a speed c+v, you sputter and fail. Why?
>
> Geesey, being able to copy what a mathematician created from a text book
> doesn't make YOU a mathematician. Solving Maxwell's equations might be
> difficult but understanding what they mean is a bloody cinch.
Since by your standards I am uneducated, why don't you show me how
Maxwell's equations allow a photon to travel at a speed c+v.
Or are you going to run away again after calling me some names, like
Androcles does?
[...]
Y.Porat
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > Since by your standards I am uneducated, why don't you show me how
> Maxwell's equations allow a photon to travel at a speed c+v.
>
> Or are you going to run away again after calling me some names, like
> Androcles does?
>
> [...]
to anyone who still dont know who is Eric Gisse
he is a 22 years old student
and going to winn the Nobel
Nobel for what ?? may be you can guess ???
Y.P
---------------------------------
Y.Porat
i dont onow about string theory
but i am quite sure
*it was adapted and adjusted** to fit some aoriori assumptions
may be he flopp theory of curved space time
that parrots like awilson are going to bang their heads in it
to therest of their life !!and at trhe same long time
tolive in a paradaiz of fools
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
Eric Gisse
Stop pouting. You aren't impressing anyone.
>
> Y.P
> ---------------------------------
Y.Porat
sorry sorry i forgot that youare the super commander here
actually a nice achievement for a 22 years old student !!! (:-)
but btw whay such a noble commander like you is diverting the
posts from the orriginal destination??
not nice for a noble man like you of 22 yreas old
it fits betetr a 60 years old crook !!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
>
> >
> > Y.P
> > ---------------------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > > Henri Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Since by your standards I am uneducated, why don't you show me how
> > > > Maxwell's equations allow a photon to travel at a speed c+v.
> > > >
> > > > Or are you going to run away again after calling me some names, like
> > > > Androcles does?
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > ------------------------
> > > to anyone who still dont know who is Eric Gisse
> > >
> > > he is a 22 years old student
> > > and going to winn the Nobel
> > >
> > > Nobel for what ?? may be you can guess ???
> >
> > Stop pouting. You aren't impressing anyone.
> ------------------
> sorry sorry i forgot that youare the super commander here
> actually a nice achievement for a 22 years old student !!! (:-)
>
> but btw whay such a noble commander like you is diverting the
> posts from the orriginal destination??
...because you fall for it so fucking often.
Y.Porat
> > > > to anyone who still dont know who is Eric Gisse
> > > >
> > > > he is a 22 years old student
> > > > and going to winn the Nobel
> > > >
> > > > Nobel for what ?? may be you can guess ???
> > >
> > > Stop pouting. You aren't impressing anyone.
> > ------------------
> > sorry sorry i forgot that youare the super commander here
> > actually a nice achievement for a 22 years old student !!! (:-)
> >
> > but btw whay such a noble commander like you is diverting the
> > posts from the orriginal destination??
>
> ...because you fall for it so fucking often.
Hi the new commander of this ng
a 22 years old student
(and the little shit crook keeps diverting the posts to other
placesjust to prove that he is a 22 years disturbed crook shit
Y.P
--------------------
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Herbert Glazier gave it a convex curve for repulsion. It fits well with
natures balancing act. It fits well in explaining space expansion.
Bert
hanson
news:21480-450...@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...
Now, since you, Herbert Glazier have put yourself right next
to Albert Einstein you surely must be able to explain without
any other balancing acts, the reoccurring question raised
in any of the links below, especially since you said:
::B:: "I do know how every thing works,
::B:: and pass this information on"
::B:: "Why.. am I not loved by all?" Bert
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/361966daabbdeca0
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3b5d5eee8257ba9
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4a3cb02c3d67cadf
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/18b84fb4ddef0f14
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9d139adf24f425c5
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9cb92f51ade500ae
.....you' will be lowed if you answer it, Herbie
ahahaha... ahahahanson
G=EMC^2 Glazier
I know the cosmos before BB I know how the first universe was created,I
know how mini-universes came out of this parent universe.. I even know
what makes a bigoted low life insult to humankind hanson like piece of
turd ticks. Bert
Sorcerer
Wow... You DO know a lot. Prove to me there was a BB.
Androcles
hanson
aka Herbie, your display of your cultural values here are truly impressive:
news:27185-450...@storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net...
>
[hanson]
.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ...however Herbie,
you would not be such an embarrassment to your own ilk and you
would make a far better impression if you were to answer my
question, instead of you trying to create the impression that you are
NOT a Zionist Jew. So answer my question instead of ejaculating
your desperate diversion attempts with your banal and pedestrian
loud- & badmouthing while you have been caught with your pants
down. Herbie, simply answer:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c6dee513388f68a6
All the links cited therein have the common denominator which says:
*** ... oye-weh-Zion Glaser's God is Israel. *** He is one of those
kikes who live in the US, but who do live & operate by the belief of
----- "Israel First, then maybe, just maybe, the USA 2nd" ------
oye-weh-Zion Glaser's own whinings stated in HIS own words that:
::B::"Go Figure" .... Jews use that term".
::B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true".
::B:: "We do need the help of Israel to help us"
::B:: "I stuck up for Israel"
::B:: "I do know how every thing works,
::B:: and pass this information on"
::B:: "Why.. am I not loved by all?" Bert
>
I think you perhaps will be so, AFTER you "pass on" the
------ answer to why ------
>
"...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
involved in ? --- What good or benefit has come in return to
the American taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that
came off the tables from poor American families?"
------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert -------
hanson
Joe Jakarta
> This is just a theory.
>
> really logarithmic?
>
Henri Wilson
Glad to see that another of my expertly constructed theories has been taken
seriously...
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 03:28:19 -0700, "Joe Jakarta" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
> >Ain't new. Check out Milne's "kinematic relativity" (1930s).
>
> Glad to see that another of my expertly constructed theories has been taken
> seriously...
Like hell you have a theory.
You saw the Poincare disk and simply thought "space is like this!"
You have not made any effort into formulating your new "theory" into
something capable of testing, much less worth learning.
So Henri, when are you going to use your applied mathematics degree to
actually formulate all your theories into a mathematical - and testable
- form? Or are you going to keep using the "but people will steal my
work!" line to avoid doing actual work?
Henri Wilson
I'll let you into a secret Geesey.
You know all that stuff you are being taught at the university you imagine you
are attending, well 95% of it you will never use again in your whole career (if
you ever have one). Physics is about concepts and experimentation. If you want
a maths analysis you ask a mathematician to help you. You only need enough
maths to know what he's talking about.
A few physicists end up in theoretical fields but the majority go where the
money is, into applied research.
PD
> This is just a theory.
>
> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> really logarithmic?
>
>
A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
that "what"?
PD
Henri Wilson
I haven't worked it all out yet.
>
>PD
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Henri Wilson wrote:
| >> This is just a theory.
| >>
| >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we
measure are
| >> really logarithmic?
| >>
| >>
| >
| >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
| >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
| >that "what"?
|
| I haven't worked it all out yet.
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
> >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
> >that "what"?
>
> I haven't worked it all out yet.
Well if you haven't worked it out even that far, then you haven't got a
theory. You've got a buzzword rattling around in your head.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
> >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
> >that "what"?
>
> I haven't worked it all out yet.
Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> This is just a theory.
>> >>
>> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> >> really logarithmic?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
>> >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
>> >that "what"?
>>
>> I haven't worked it all out yet.
>
>Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
>
>Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 15:47:31 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> >> This is just a theory.
> >> >>
> >> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> >> really logarithmic?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
> >> >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
> >> >that "what"?
> >>
> >> I haven't worked it all out yet.
> >
> >Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
> >
> >Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
>
> One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
> If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
Ok.
How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
It doesn't matter which branch of log you pick, log(0) is a problem.
While you are tackling this amazing problem, why don't you go back to
the other discussion about Maxwell's equations? Or are you going to run
away again?
Joe Jakarta
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 03:28:19 -0700, "Joe Jakarta" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
> >Ain't new. Check out Milne's "kinematic relativity" (1930s).
>
> Glad to see that another of my expertly constructed theories has been taken
> seriously...
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
See you've been reading the exe files.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2006 15:47:31 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
>> >
>> >Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
>>
>> One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
>> If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
>
>Ok.
>
>How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
According to hte log space theory, there is no such thing as zero distance.
>It doesn't matter which branch of log you pick, log(0) is a problem.
It isn't
Distances can approach 1/infinity. Remember 'distance' or 'absolute length' is
the space between two objects. How can it be zero?
>While you are tackling this amazing problem, why don't you go back to
>the other discussion about Maxwell's equations? Or are you going to run
>away again?
Geesey, why can't you tackle the simple qestions yourself instead of asking me
to educate you all the time?
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 22:00:16 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 19 Sep 2006 15:47:31 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> >Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
> >> >
> >> >Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
> >>
> >> One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
> >> If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
> >
> >Ok.
> >
> >How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
>
> According to hte log space theory, there is no such thing as zero distance.
Yea that degree certaintly is paying for itself, isn't it?
You have no idea what a vacuum is because you can't describe it without
referring to words like "absurd", and you have no concept of the term
"zero".
>
> >It doesn't matter which branch of log you pick, log(0) is a problem.
>
> It isn't
> Distances can approach 1/infinity. Remember 'distance' or 'absolute length' is
> the space between two objects. How can it be zero?
How far away is something from itself?
>
> >While you are tackling this amazing problem, why don't you go back to
> >the other discussion about Maxwell's equations? Or are you going to run
> >away again?
>
> Geesey, why can't you tackle the simple qestions yourself instead of asking me
> to educate you all the time?
So in other words, you are shifting the workload from yourself onto me
because I'm the one asking. Science doesn't work that way, Henri. Then
again, you never quite did grasp the fundamentals of science, so your
ignorance of yet another simple topic isn't surprising.
Here is a clue: It is your theory - you support it, or you shut the
fuck up and be quiet. If you are going to use this newsgroup to parade
shit theory after shit theory, you had better get used to the
consequences.
Most everyone here ignores you, the rest fight you. You and Androcles
can't agree on anything without insulting eachother, "fighting a common
enemy" notwithstanding. Nobody else even shows you a modicum of
respect.
I don't even see why you bother posting when it is obvious that you are
never going to contribute anything of worth even to USENET.
When are you going to publish your theories, Henri? Or are you STILL
"working out the details" as you have been for the last ten fucking
years?
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 22:00:16 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 19 Sep 2006 15:47:31 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> >Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
> >> >
> >> >Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
> >>
> >> One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
> >> If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
> >
> >Ok.
> >
> >How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
>
> According to hte log space theory, there is no such thing as zero distance.
What log space theory? All you've said is two things:
"Throw away your textbooks. Space is logarithmic."
"I haven't worked out all the details yet."
Now, if a firefly is sitting on the arm of a deck chair and he flashes
his little beacon once, twice -- what is the logarithmic distance
between those two flash events?
PD
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2006 22:00:16 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
>>
>> According to hte log space theory, there is no such thing as zero distance.
>
>Yea that degree certaintly is paying for itself, isn't it?
>
>You have no idea what a vacuum is because you can't describe it without
>referring to words like "absurd", and you have no concept of the term
>"zero".
>
>>
>> >It doesn't matter which branch of log you pick, log(0) is a problem.
>>
>> It isn't
>> Distances can approach 1/infinity. Remember 'distance' or 'absolute length' is
>> the space between two objects. How can it be zero?
>
>How far away is something from itself?
Wrong question.
Can two objects occupy the same point in space, geesey?
>> >While you are tackling this amazing problem, why don't you go back to
>> >the other discussion about Maxwell's equations? Or are you going to run
>> >away again?
>>
>> Geesey, why can't you tackle the simple qestions yourself instead of asking me
>> to educate you all the time?
>
>So in other words, you are shifting the workload from yourself onto me
>because I'm the one asking. Science doesn't work that way, Henri. Then
>again, you never quite did grasp the fundamentals of science, so your
>ignorance of yet another simple topic isn't surprising.
>
>Here is a clue: It is your theory - you support it, or you shut the
>fuck up and be quiet. If you are going to use this newsgroup to parade
>shit theory after shit theory, you had better get used to the
>consequences.
>
>Most everyone here ignores you, the rest fight you. You and Androcles
>can't agree on anything without insulting eachother, "fighting a common
>enemy" notwithstanding. Nobody else even shows you a modicum of
>respect.
>
>I don't even see why you bother posting when it is obvious that you are
>never going to contribute anything of worth even to USENET.
Poor boy...no future in science at all.....
>When are you going to publish your theories, Henri? Or are you STILL
>"working out the details" as you have been for the last ten fucking
>years?
I publish them here geesey so idiots like you will be better off.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2006 22:00:16 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
>> >>
>> >> One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
>> >> If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
>> >
>> >Ok.
>> >
>> >How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
>>
>> According to hte log space theory, there is no such thing as zero distance.
>
>What log space theory? All you've said is two things:
>"Throw away your textbooks. Space is logarithmic."
>"I haven't worked out all the details yet."
>
>Now, if a firefly is sitting on the arm of a deck chair and he flashes
>his little beacon once, twice -- what is the logarithmic distance
>between those two flash events?
Don't bring TIME into this.
Length is absolute. Our perception of it is logarithmic....but it isn't as
straightforward as you might think....
>PD
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2006 06:11:09 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 19 Sep 2006 22:00:16 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >> >Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
> >> >>
> >> >> One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
> >> >> If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
> >> >
> >> >Ok.
> >> >
> >> >How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
> >>
> >> According to hte log space theory, there is no such thing as zero distance.
> >
> >What log space theory? All you've said is two things:
> >"Throw away your textbooks. Space is logarithmic."
> >"I haven't worked out all the details yet."
> >
> >Now, if a firefly is sitting on the arm of a deck chair and he flashes
> >his little beacon once, twice -- what is the logarithmic distance
> >between those two flash events?
>
> Don't bring TIME into this.
I wasn't. I didn't ask anything about the interval of time between the
two events. I asked only about the difference in distance between these
two events.
> Length is absolute.
Then what is the logarithmic absolute distance between those two
events?
> Our perception of it is logarithmic....but it isn't as
> straightforward as you might think....
Yes, you're right, it isn't straightforward at all. That's why I'm
asking for details that you can't seem to give.
Henri Wilson
I will work on it soon. I'm really too busy at present.
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2006 20:44:30 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 21 Sep 2006 06:11:09 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >Then what is the logarithmic absolute distance between those two
> >events?
> >
> >> Our perception of it is logarithmic....but it isn't as
> >> straightforward as you might think....
> >
> >Yes, you're right, it isn't straightforward at all. That's why I'm
> >asking for details that you can't seem to give.
>
> I will work on it soon. I'm really too busy at present.
Here's a suggestion:
When you have time to work on it,
and when you've had time to work out at least the basic answers to
obvious questions,
THEN you can recommend that we can burn all our books, because space is
logarithmic.
PD
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 21 Sep 2006 20:44:30 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 21 Sep 2006 06:11:09 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> >Then what is the logarithmic absolute distance between those two
>> >events?
>> >
>> >> Our perception of it is logarithmic....but it isn't as
>> >> straightforward as you might think....
>> >
>> >Yes, you're right, it isn't straightforward at all. That's why I'm
>> >asking for details that you can't seem to give.
>>
>> I will work on it soon. I'm really too busy at present.
>
>Here's a suggestion:
>When you have time to work on it,
>
>and when you've had time to work out at least the basic answers to
>obvious questions,
>
>THEN you can recommend that we can burn all our books, because space is
>logarithmic.
>
>PD
I'm not stopping YOU from working on such a theory. You are obviously
interested.
PD
Ah, so you'll produce the buzzphrase, and when someone else works out
the details, you can say it was your idea...
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 23 Sep 2006 14:53:22 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >THEN you can recommend that we can burn all our books, because space is
>> >logarithmic.
>> >
>> >PD
>>
>> I'm not stopping YOU from working on such a theory. You are obviously
>> interested.
>
>Ah, so you'll produce the buzzphrase, and when someone else works out
>the details, you can say it was your idea...
it WAS my idea.
It's time of announcement is recorded in google....
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2006 03:59:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 23 Sep 2006 14:53:22 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >
> >> >THEN you can recommend that we can burn all our books, because space is
> >> >logarithmic.
> >> >
> >> >PD
> >>
> >> I'm not stopping YOU from working on such a theory. You are obviously
> >> interested.
> >
> >Ah, so you'll produce the buzzphrase, and when someone else works out
> >the details, you can say it was your idea...
>
> it WAS my idea.
> It's time of announcement is recorded in google....
Oh?
Then why is it you have not bothered to DEVELOP your idea? When are you
going to produce a theory that folks can use without having to ask you
first?
As with every "theory" you have had, folks have to get its' predictions
by using YOUR computer programs or asking YOU what the theory predicts.
T Wake
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On 25 Sep 2006 03:59:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On 23 Sep 2006 14:53:22 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>
>>> >
>>> >THEN you can recommend that we can burn all our books, because space is
>>> >logarithmic.
>>> >
>>> >PD
>>>
>>> I'm not stopping YOU from working on such a theory. You are obviously
>>> interested.
>>
>>Ah, so you'll produce the buzzphrase, and when someone else works out
>>the details, you can say it was your idea...
>
> it WAS my idea.
> It's time of announcement is recorded in google....
>
So what have you done to develop it then?
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2006 03:59:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 23 Sep 2006 14:53:22 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >
> >> >THEN you can recommend that we can burn all our books, because space is
> >> >logarithmic.
> >> >
> >> >PD
> >>
> >> I'm not stopping YOU from working on such a theory. You are obviously
> >> interested.
> >
> >Ah, so you'll produce the buzzphrase, and when someone else works out
> >the details, you can say it was your idea...
>
> it WAS my idea.
> It's time of announcement is recorded in google....
Sorry, a buzzphrase is not an announcement of a theory.
Likewise, some yokel that says that protons are made of teeny
particles, and manages to do so a decade before Gell-Mann figures out
quarks, does not get credit for the theory.
The credit goes to the person who can *do* something useful with the
theory that matches up to experiment, where no other theory does.
When you can do something useful with your buzzphrase, the very least
of which would be figuring out "logarithm of what?", then you stand a
chance of getting credit for your idea.
If you're looking for fame, you haven't the foggiest idea how to go
about it. Check back with your mom about the rules on these things.
PD
Henri Wilson
No PD, things have changed. No longer can the boss take all the credit for
something achieved by a member of his staff.
Thanks to the internet, these NGs and google, priority dates for all new ideas
are now accurately recorded .
>
>
>PD
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2006 18:34:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 25 Sep 2006 03:59:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >
> >> >Ah, so you'll produce the buzzphrase, and when someone else works out
> >> >the details, you can say it was your idea...
> >>
> >> it WAS my idea.
> >> It's time of announcement is recorded in google....
> >
> >Sorry, a buzzphrase is not an announcement of a theory.
> >Likewise, some yokel that says that protons are made of teeny
> >particles, and manages to do so a decade before Gell-Mann figures out
> >quarks, does not get credit for the theory.
> >The credit goes to the person who can *do* something useful with the
> >theory that matches up to experiment, where no other theory does.
> >When you can do something useful with your buzzphrase, the very least
> >of which would be figuring out "logarithm of what?", then you stand a
> >chance of getting credit for your idea.
> >
> >If you're looking for fame, you haven't the foggiest idea how to go
> >about it. Check back with your mom about the rules on these things.
>
> No PD, things have changed. No longer can the boss take all the credit for
> something achieved by a member of his staff.
> Thanks to the internet, these NGs and google, priority dates for all new ideas
> are now accurately recorded .
Sooo...
How does that mesh with Henri Wilson creates the idea, someone else
does all the hard work, and Henri Wilson gets credit?
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Yep:
2AB/(t'A- tA) = c
Message-ID: <epWH2.1150$ww5....@news.rdc1.pa.home.com>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4674b29449f08fb0?hl=en
Wed, Mar 17 1999 9:00 am
Androcles
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2006 18:34:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 25 Sep 2006 03:59:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >
> >> >Ah, so you'll produce the buzzphrase, and when someone else works out
> >> >the details, you can say it was your idea...
> >>
> >> it WAS my idea.
> >> It's time of announcement is recorded in google....
> >
> >Sorry, a buzzphrase is not an announcement of a theory.
> >Likewise, some yokel that says that protons are made of teeny
> >particles, and manages to do so a decade before Gell-Mann figures out
> >quarks, does not get credit for the theory.
> >The credit goes to the person who can *do* something useful with the
> >theory that matches up to experiment, where no other theory does.
> >When you can do something useful with your buzzphrase, the very least
> >of which would be figuring out "logarithm of what?", then you stand a
> >chance of getting credit for your idea.
> >
> >If you're looking for fame, you haven't the foggiest idea how to go
> >about it. Check back with your mom about the rules on these things.
>
> No PD, things have changed. No longer can the boss take all the credit for
> something achieved by a member of his staff.
> Thanks to the internet, these NGs and google, priority dates for all new ideas
> are now accurately recorded .
As are your statements
"I haven't worked it all out yet."
and
"I will work on it soon. I'm really too busy at present."
Please note the difference between intention and accomplishment.
PD
Henri Wilson
That's life, Geesey.
But you wont have to worry... you never get any new ideas....
Henri Wilson
I am 'accomplishing' in other ways, at present.
But I'll still try to find time to educate you people...
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:njbjh29fh9ofbphjb...@4ax.com...
>| On 25 Sep 2006 18:34:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>|
>| No PD, things have changed. No longer can the boss take all the credit for
>| something achieved by a member of his staff.
>| Thanks to the internet, these NGs and google, priority dates for all new
>ideas
>| are now accurately recorded .
>
>
>Yep:
> 2AB/(t'A- tA) = c
It is true.
Light moves at c wrt it source as well as the mirror that is at rest wrt the
source.
In a virtual image, both direction and speed are reversed...but that's too hard
for an engineer who missed out on the optics courses.
>Message-ID: <epWH2.1150$ww5....@news.rdc1.pa.home.com>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4674b29449f08fb0?hl=en
>Wed, Mar 17 1999 9:00 am
>
>Androcles
>
PD
You mean educate us on stuff you haven't worked out yet?
You mean educate us on stuff you plan to work on soon?
You mean educate us on things you're too busy to work on at present?
PD
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:09:52 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:njbjh29fh9ofbphjb...@4ax.com...
| >| On 25 Sep 2006 18:34:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
| >|
|
| >| No PD, things have changed. No longer can the boss take all the credit
for
| >| something achieved by a member of his staff.
| >| Thanks to the internet, these NGs and google, priority dates for all
new
| >ideas
| >| are now accurately recorded .
| >
| >
| >Yep:
| > 2AB/(t'A- tA) = c
|
| It is true.
What are you arguing with relativists for? You should be kissing Gisse's
arse,
he loves you for that.
| Light moves at c wrt it source as well as the mirror that is at rest wrt
the
| source.
Idiot: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
|
| In a virtual image, both direction and speed are reversed
Exactly, but that's too hard for a wabo who missed out on
mathematics courses and doesn't know what "constant" means.
Henri Wilson
Draper, I will provide the ideas, you can work on them.
It's obvious that relativists don't have any of their own.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:jdtlh2le2ajkc26vo...@4ax.com...
>| On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:09:52 GMT, "Sorcerer"
>|
>| It is true.
>
>What are you arguing with relativists for? You should be kissing Gisse's
>arse,
>he loves you for that.
>
>
>| Light moves at c wrt it source as well as the mirror that is at rest wrt
>the
>| source.
>
>Idiot: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
>
>|
>| In a virtual image, both direction and speed are reversed
>
>Exactly, but that's too hard for a wabo who missed out on
>mathematics courses and doesn't know what "constant" means.
You know, I can't call you a pommie bastard any more because the Australian
Cricket board has banned all such expessions for the coming test matches on the
grounds that they are racist. Any onlooker who insults an English cricketter in
such a way may be banned for life from Australian grounds.
I didn't know your boys were so sensitive.
I'll try to be nicer to you in future...
....you silly old drunken pommie gentleman.....
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
T Wake
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On 27 Sep 2006 15:09:13 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Draper, I will provide the ideas, you can work on them.
>
> It's obvious that relativists don't have any of their own.
>
I have worked on the ideas and they are nonsense. I am too busy to present
my findings so you can work on them yourself if you don't believe me.
Sorcerer
"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:abudnW-BXvn...@pipex.net...
You are obviously a complete lunatic. I am too busy to present
my findings so you can work on them yourself if you don't believe me.
Androcles
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:cjanh210fr6eaaa6m...@4ax.com...
>| You know, I can't call you a pommie bastard any more because the
>Australian
>| Cricket board has banned all such expessions for the coming test matches
>on the
>| grounds that they are racist. Any onlooker who insults an English
>cricketter in
>| such a way may be banned for life from Australian grounds.
>|
>| I didn't know your boys were so sensitive.
>| I'll try to be nicer to you in future...
>|
>|
>| ....you silly old drunken pommie gentleman.....
>|
>Fucking stupid old black wino abo doesn't know what constant means.
Racist remarks are no longer accepted in this country.
We have to protect your wimpish cricketters from that kind of abuse.
...so fuck off you drunken old senile ENGLISH GENTLEMAN....
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
(another world-shattering announcement coming soon)
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:14:55 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:cjanh210fr6eaaa6m...@4ax.com...
|
| >| You know, I can't call you a pommie bastard any more because the
| >Australian
| >| Cricket board has banned all such expessions for the coming test
matches
| >on the
| >| grounds that they are racist. Any onlooker who insults an English
| >cricketter in
| >| such a way may be banned for life from Australian grounds.
| >|
| >| I didn't know your boys were so sensitive.
| >| I'll try to be nicer to you in future...
| >|
| >|
| >| ....you silly old drunken pommie gentleman.....
| >|
| >Fucking stupid old black wino abo doesn't know what constant means.
|
| Racist remarks are no longer accepted in this country.
Too bad, I'm not IN your country, and cricket is just another
dumb ball game (Newtonian rules).
The time for a ball to go from bowler to batsman
does NOT equal the time for it to go from batsman to
be caught at silly mid off.
Fucking senile old black wino abo bastard is an Einstein
supporter, hahahanson calls your kind "Einstein dingleberries"
'cause you all kiss his arse.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:lggoh21mhtd2fm11i...@4ax.com...
>| On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:14:55 GMT, "Sorcerer"
>| >| ....you silly old drunken pommie gentleman.....
>| >|
>| >Fucking stupid old black wino abo doesn't know what constant means.
>|
>| Racist remarks are no longer accepted in this country.
>
>Too bad, I'm not IN your country, and cricket is just another
>dumb ball game (Newtonian rules).
>The time for a ball to go from bowler to batsman
>does NOT equal the time for it to go from batsman to
>be caught at silly mid off.
>Fucking senile old black wino abo bastard is an Einstein
>supporter, hahahanson calls your kind "Einstein dingleberries"
>'cause you all kiss his arse.
Hanson!!! hanson!!! You quote HANSON!!!!!
He's madder than YOU!!!!!
Louis Savain's ghost.....
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Savain is a fucking moron. Hahahanson is smarter than you, though,
Einstein dingleberry.
hanson
might pop a hemmie and you, as a devout Einstein Dingleberry,
might fall off the sphincter locus at/on your role model Einstein.
While I feel empathy for your plight, I truly thank you for the laughs...
ahahahaha... ...
>
"Hen" aka "Henri Wilson" a grievelously cranked Einstein's Dingleberry
<HW@..> w/i news:6lnph2l0pj88b3o7a...@4ax.com...
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message to Andro
>>news:lggoh21mhtd2fm11i...@4ax.com...
>>| >| ....you silly old drunken pommie gentleman.....
>>| >|
>>| >Fucking stupid old black wino abo doesn't know what constant means.
>
>>| Racist remarks are no longer accepted in this country.
>>
>>Too bad, I'm not IN your country, and cricket is just another
>>dumb ball game (Newtonian rules).
>>The time for a ball to go from bowler to batsman
>>does NOT equal the time for it to go from batsman to
>>be caught at silly mid off.
>>Fucking senile old black wino abo bastard is an Einstein
>>supporter, hahahanson calls your kind "Einstein dingleberries"
>>'cause you all kiss his arse.
>
> Hanson!!! hanson!!! You quote HANSON!!!!!
> He's madder than YOU!!!!!
> Louis Savain's ghost.....
> HW.
>
-----------------------------
Andro 1 : Hen 0
-----------------------------
[Hen]
> (another world-shattering announcement coming soon)
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... what?... That you, the Einstein Dingleberry, fell
off your master's rectal hair strand?.... ahahahaha....
Hen, you really should truly pity yourself if you believe
that you are not mad. You are a candidate for Ravencrag.
Thanks for the laughs, Hen!!!!! ...ahahaha... ahahanson
Henri Wilson
>Awe... ...Henry, don't press so hard (!!!!) on account of me. You
>might pop a hemmie and you, as a devout Einstein Dingleberry,
>might fall off the sphincter locus at/on your role model Einstein.
>While I feel empathy for your plight, I truly thank you for the laughs...
>ahahahaha... ...
I thought so...
Hanson = Androcles..
Don't call me an Einstein dingleberry or I'll smash your monitor...
Einstein was the greatest hoaxer since jesus christ...
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
hanson
news:1d3rh29fhq9e1jed5...@4ax.com...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>Awe... ...Henry, don't press so hard (!!!!) on account of me. You
>>might pop a hemmie and you, as a devout Einstein Dingleberry,
>>might fall off the sphincter locus at/on your role model Einstein.
>>While I feel empathy for your plight, I truly thank you for the laughs...
>>ahahahaha... ...
>
> I thought so...
> Hanson = Androcles..
>
ahahahaha... I hope your theory is more accuate then your
guess here. Andro is in the UK, and I am not too far from
you in Rarotonga... ahahhaha
> Don't call me an Einstein dingleberry or I'll smash your monitor...
> Einstein was the greatest hoaxer since jesus christ...
>
ahahaha... OK, then your are of the same general opinion
as is Andro and myself. So, what are you arguing about then,
calling him and me names for?.... ahahaha.... That sounds like
you are mad... even without a set of (!!!!).... ahahaha....
>
[Hen]
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:CnfTg.35$If3.16@trnddc07...
| Awe... ...Henry, don't press so hard (!!!!) on account of me. You
| might pop a hemmie and you, as a devout Einstein Dingleberry,
| might fall off the sphincter locus at/on your role model Einstein.
| While I feel empathy for your plight, I truly thank you for the laughs...
| ahahahaha... ...
| Andro 1 : Hen 0
| -----------------------------
Aww... Give H ln(0.3) = -1.204 of a point, I enjoy his ribbing.
I feel a tad sorry for him, he's well past 70 and got his B.Sc. in 1970.
Not too bright, but tries hard. Senile dementia is setting in now.
The reason for his logarithmic distances is that he models
all his worbits edge-on ( worbits are Wilson orbits ) and so
he reproduces real light curves from stars that are 0.3 light
years away. By claiming the distance is logarithmic he can
arrange for a reasonable value and save face.
Poor old chap... little does he realize just how transparent he is.
He longs for a theory of his own, you see, but only got
its logarithm.
I expect the world shattering announcement will be that he's
discovered the exp() function.
Henri Wilson
>Hen aka "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> rectified misconceptions in
>news:1d3rh29fhq9e1jed5...@4ax.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>>Awe... ...Henry, don't press so hard (!!!!) on account of me. You
>>>might pop a hemmie and you, as a devout Einstein Dingleberry,
>>>might fall off the sphincter locus at/on your role model Einstein.
>>>While I feel empathy for your plight, I truly thank you for the laughs...
>>>ahahahaha... ...
>>
>[Hen]
>> I thought so...
>> Hanson = Androcles..
>>
>[hanson]
>ahahahaha... I hope your theory is more accuate then your
>guess here. Andro is in the UK, and I am not too far from
>you in Rarotonga... ahahhaha
Raratonga????
You don't have internet in Raratonga do you?
>>>[Hen]
>>>> (another world-shattering announcement coming soon)
>>>>
>>>[hanson]
>>>ahahaha... what?... That you, the Einstein Dingleberry, fell
>>>off your master's rectal hair strand?.... ahahahaha....
>>>Hen, you really should truly pity yourself if you believe
>>>that you are not mad. You are a candidate for Ravencrag.
>>>Thanks for the laughs, Hen!!!!! ...ahahaha... ahahanson
>>
>[Hen]
>> Don't call me an Einstein dingleberry or I'll smash your monitor...
>> Einstein was the greatest hoaxer since jesus christ...
>>
>[hanson]
>ahahaha... OK, then your are of the same general opinion
>as is Andro and myself. So, what are you arguing about then,
>calling him and me names for?.... ahahaha.... That sounds like
>you are mad... even without a set of (!!!!).... ahahaha....
Androcles is a drunken old pommie bastard. He is jealous of me because my
variable star program is 100 times better than his. He also owes me 1 dozen
bottles of red.
....but we will still unite against the common enemy...
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>news:CnfTg.35$If3.16@trnddc07...
>| Awe... ...Henry, don't press so hard (!!!!) on account of me. You
>| might pop a hemmie and you, as a devout Einstein Dingleberry,
>| might fall off the sphincter locus at/on your role model Einstein.
>| While I feel empathy for your plight, I truly thank you for the laughs...
>| ahahahaha... ...
>| -----------------------------
>| Andro 1 : Hen 0
>| -----------------------------
>
>Aww... Give H ln(0.3) = -1.204 of a point, I enjoy his ribbing.
>I feel a tad sorry for him, he's well past 70 and got his B.Sc. in 1970.
>Not too bright, but tries hard. Senile dementia is setting in now.
>The reason for his logarithmic distances is that he models
>all his worbits edge-on ( worbits are Wilson orbits ) and so
>he reproduces real light curves from stars that are 0.3 light
>years away. By claiming the distance is logarithmic he can
>arrange for a reasonable value and save face.
>Poor old chap... little does he realize just how transparent he is.
>He longs for a theory of his own, you see, but only got
>its logarithm.
>I expect the world shattering announcement will be that he's
>discovered the exp() function.
Useless pommie engineer.... doesn't know anything about optics.
His car's odometer stil reads zero because it is returned to the same place
every day. ie., it has travelled zero distance according to the pommie
engineer who never studied optics.
>| [Hen]
>| > (another world-shattering announcement coming soon)
>| >
>| [hanson]
>| ahahaha... what?... That you, the Einstein Dingleberry, fell
>| off your master's rectal hair strand?.... ahahahaha....
>| Hen, you really should truly pity yourself if you believe
>| that you are not mad. You are a candidate for Ravencrag.
>| Thanks for the laughs, Hen!!!!! ...ahahaha... ahahanson
Most geniuses throughout history have been considered mad at some stage.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:57:29 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
|
| >Hen aka "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> rectified misconceptions in
| >news:1d3rh29fhq9e1jed5...@4ax.com...
| > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
| >>>Awe... ...Henry, don't press so hard (!!!!) on account of me. You
| >>>might pop a hemmie and you, as a devout Einstein Dingleberry,
| >>>might fall off the sphincter locus at/on your role model Einstein.
| >>>While I feel empathy for your plight, I truly thank you for the
laughs...
| >>>ahahahaha... ...
| >>
| >[Hen]
| >> I thought so...
| >> Hanson = Androcles..
| >>
| >[hanson]
| >ahahahaha... I hope your theory is more accuate then your
| >guess here. Andro is in the UK, and I am not too far from
| >you in Rarotonga... ahahhaha
|
| Raratonga????
| You don't have internet in Raratonga do you?
Egads... I thought all you South Sea islanders had heard of satellites.
We North Sea islanders use 'em all the time.
|
|
| >>>[Hen]
| >>>> (another world-shattering announcement coming soon)
| >>>>
| >>>[hanson]
| >>>ahahaha... what?... That you, the Einstein Dingleberry, fell
| >>>off your master's rectal hair strand?.... ahahahaha....
| >>>Hen, you really should truly pity yourself if you believe
| >>>that you are not mad. You are a candidate for Ravencrag.
| >>>Thanks for the laughs, Hen!!!!! ...ahahaha... ahahanson
| >>
| >[Hen]
| >> Don't call me an Einstein dingleberry or I'll smash your monitor...
| >> Einstein was the greatest hoaxer since jesus christ...
| >>
| >[hanson]
| >ahahaha... OK, then your are of the same general opinion
| >as is Andro and myself. So, what are you arguing about then,
| >calling him and me names for?.... ahahaha.... That sounds like
| >you are mad... even without a set of (!!!!).... ahahaha....
|
| Androcles is a drunken old pommie bastard. He is jealous of me because my
| variable star program is 100 times better than his. He also owes me 1
dozen
| bottles of red.
|
I'll let an independent third party be the judge.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm| ....but we will still unite against the common enemy...|Henri owe me three cases of Glenlivet, AU$4000. I'd give himhis dozen bottles of cheap ozzy Sherez plonk if he paid up.You are an Einstein dingleberry that doesn't know what a constantvelocity is and has never heard of calculus. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF(I've redrawn the gif to make it easier for you)How the fuck can you find the slope?
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Stupid ozzy black abo Einstein dingleberry thinks he can find the
height of Everest with altimeters at the base on each side by
averaging their readings.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
|
| >| [Hen]
| >| > (another world-shattering announcement coming soon)
| >| >
| >| [hanson]
| >| ahahaha... what?... That you, the Einstein Dingleberry, fell
| >| off your master's rectal hair strand?.... ahahahaha....
| >| Hen, you really should truly pity yourself if you believe
| >| that you are not mad. You are a candidate for Ravencrag.
| >| Thanks for the laughs, Hen!!!!! ...ahahaha... ahahanson
|
| Most geniuses throughout history have been considered mad at some stage.
Yep. Pity you are not one of them and are just mad.
Androcles
Henri Wilson
wrote:
You are still bogged down in aether theory. Has Seto finally converted you?
According to the BaTh, tB-tA=tA'-tB.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm