Axiom-free math/geometry, real science has NULL postulates.
josX
Why does only one straight line go through 2 points?
Try it.
SHEESH you mathematicians are stuuuuupid!
--
jos
Ronald Stepp
Explain, please so we know what you are talking about..
josX
Axiom-free Geometry:
-------------------
Props:
- sowing-thread
- table/old board
- nails
Put two nails in the board.
Knot the sowing-thread from one to the other, pull tight so the rope
is under tension, pull the thread to the heads of the nails (that are
your points/places).
Viola: a straight line connecting two points.
Now, try to put another thread there. You can't, or you would push
the other thread away. If you try, you will connect to other points,
but not the same points.
Planes, intersections, balls, cones, cylinders, they can all be made
from cartboard or paper.
Axiom-free Math:
---------------
Props
- beans
- teacups
I showed this before, i think you know what i'm getting at here.
0 = [ ] beans
1 = [ * ] beans
2 = [ * * ] beans
Putting together (adding) is putting in a teacup, getting off (substraction)
is getting out of teacup, etc etc.
[ * ] beans in your left hand, [ * ] beans in your right, put in teacup,
is [ * * ] beans.
Everything axiom-free.
--
jos
Ronald Stepp
> Knot the sowing-thread from one to the other, pull tight so the rope
> is under tension, pull the thread to the heads of the nails (that are
> your points/places).
>
> Viola: a straight line connecting two points.
Still have no idea what the hell you're rambling on about... is this some
kind of martha stewart thing?
josX
>jos wrote:
1. Who is martha stewart
2. What don't you get?
Do you not realize that mathematicians think they have based math and
geometry on arbitrary axioms, instead of on reality ?
Same thing is happening in physics: physical theories are based upon
axiom, and not upon factual experiment, even though the axiom claims
a physical proporty of a physical object.
You have no idea what is going on do you. They destroy science, they
throw away it's good name.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aksjnt$gp6$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Ronald Stepp wrote:
> >jos wrote:
> >> This is so simple, i don't think it's even necesary to post it.
> >> Why does only one straight line go through 2 points?
> >> Try it.
> >> SHEESH you mathematicians are stuuuuupid!
> >
> >Explain, please so we know what you are talking about..
>
> Axiom-free Geometry:
> -------------------
> Props:
> - sowing-thread
> - table/old board
> - nails
>
> Put two nails in the board.
> Knot the sowing-thread from one to the other, pull tight so the rope
> is under tension, pull the thread to the heads of the nails (that are
> your points/places).
>
> Viola: a straight line connecting two points.
I take a long thread and I connect the nails by going round the earth.
Voila, another straight line connecting the same points.
> Now, try to put another thread there. You can't, or you would push
> the other thread away. If you try, you will connect to other points,
> but not the same points.
Idiot. Learn how to crawl before you try to outrun a cheetah.
Go take your medication
Dirk Vdm
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aksjnt$gp6$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> Ronald Stepp wrote:
>> >jos wrote:
>> >> This is so simple, i don't think it's even necesary to post it.
>> >> Why does only one straight line go through 2 points?
>> >> Try it.
>> >> SHEESH you mathematicians are stuuuuupid!
>> >
>> >Explain, please so we know what you are talking about..
>>
>> Axiom-free Geometry:
>> -------------------
>> Props:
>> - sowing-thread
>> - table/old board
>> - nails
>>
>> Put two nails in the board.
>> Knot the sowing-thread from one to the other, pull tight so the rope
>> is under tension, pull the thread to the heads of the nails (that are
>> your points/places).
>>
>> Viola: a straight line connecting two points.
>
>I take a long thread and I connect the nails by going round the earth.
>Voila, another straight line connecting the same points.
No, many straight line-segments.
Go back to Kindergarten!
>> Now, try to put another thread there. You can't, or you would push
>> the other thread away. If you try, you will connect to other points,
>> but not the same points.
>
>Idiot. Learn how to crawl before you try to outrun a cheetah.
>Go take your medication
I could outcrawl a snail before i could walk, more i don't need here.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aksqbk$qdi$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Or better, ask for another kind of medication.
The kind that makes you crawl back into alt.alien.visitors.
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>> Same thing is happening in physics: physical theories are based upon
> axiom, and not upon factual experiment, even though the axiom claims
> a physical proporty of a physical object.
Newton got -all- of his laws of mechanics from doing gedanken
experiments, just as Einstein did. There simply were not enough
experimental facts available to produce the laws by empirical brute
force. The 3-rd law, was pure inspiration (and with appropriate
redefinion of mass, is quite correct).
Neither Newton nor Einstein made -arbitrary- assumptions.
Physical theories are creations of the intellect. They do not leap out
of piles of facts like Athena from the Brow of Zeus.
Bob Kolker
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>>> Same thing is happening in physics: physical theories are based upon
>> axiom, and not upon factual experiment, even though the axiom claims
>> a physical proporty of a physical object.
>
>
>Newton got -all- of his laws of mechanics from doing gedanken
>experiments, just as Einstein did.
Read my lips:
L I A R .
> There simply were not enough
>experimental facts available to produce the laws by empirical brute
>force. The 3-rd law, was pure inspiration (and with appropriate
>redefinion of mass, is quite correct).
>
>Neither Newton nor Einstein made -arbitrary- assumptions.
>
>Physical theories are creations of the intellect. They do not leap out
>of piles of facts like Athena from the Brow of Zeus.
They leap out of reality after enough experience with it (or experiments,
which is the exact same).
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> They leap out of reality after enough experience with it (or experiments,
> which is the exact same).
>
There cannot be enough experiments to -prove- a universally quantified
propostion. You would need to do an infinite number of experiments now
and into the future.
Bob Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen
Because one of the axioms you're using is Euclid's fifth postulate, which
demands that parallel lines never intersect.
--
"Knowing how to use your power tools properly will greatly reduce the risk
of personal injury." -- Norm Abrams
Gregory L. Hansen
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>Ronald Stepp wrote:
>>jos wrote:
>>> This is so simple, i don't think it's even necesary to post it.
>>> Why does only one straight line go through 2 points?
>>> Try it.
>>> SHEESH you mathematicians are stuuuuupid!
>>
>>Explain, please so we know what you are talking about..
>
>Axiom-free Geometry:
>-------------------
>Props:
>- sowing-thread
>- table/old board
>- nails
>
>Put two nails in the board.
>Knot the sowing-thread from one to the other, pull tight so the rope
>is under tension, pull the thread to the heads of the nails (that are
>your points/places).
>
>Viola: a straight line connecting two points.
>
>Now, try to put another thread there. You can't, or you would push
>the other thread away. If you try, you will connect to other points,
>but not the same points.
Assuming you meant a flat board, here are the axioms you are using:
http://hades.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/Internal/PHServices/Documentation/MathWorld/math/math/e/e268.htm
Gregory L. Hansen
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>josX wrote:
>>
>>>> Same thing is happening in physics: physical theories are based upon
>>> axiom, and not upon factual experiment, even though the axiom claims
>>> a physical proporty of a physical object.
>>
>>
>>Newton got -all- of his laws of mechanics from doing gedanken
>>experiments, just as Einstein did.
>
>Read my lips:
>
>L I A R .
What is it with crackpots being so quick to call anyone that disagrees
with them a liar? It seems to be a general trend.
Cite a source that proves your point, or admit you don't really know, so
you're making a false accusation, which in itself makes you a liar.
josX
You just never bother to give it a try, that's all.
Why don't you buy some beans (maybe you have them in your kitchen already!),
get some cups out, and experiment with basic math. Do the 1+1=2 experiment
for some time, you will find out the 1+1=2 proposition can be quite
convinsing over time. Most of us have learned that sort of thing in
Kindergarten, but those who forget, must learn it again. Good luck.
Here a chart for you:
0 = [ ] beans
1 = [ * ] beans
2 = [ * * ] beans
adding-in-cup = '+'
results-in-in-the-cup = '='
That'll keep you busy for some time...
Try it, it can be very convincing in the long run.
You can do the same with f=m*a once you mastered the above.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>>
>
> You just never bother to give it a try, that's all.
Try as you will. In a human life time only a finite number of
observations can be made. A finite number will not prove a universally
quantified proposition with an infinite number of instances.
>
> Why don't you buy some beans (maybe you have them in your kitchen already!),
> get some cups out, and experiment with basic math. Do the 1+1=2 experiment
> for some time, you will find out the 1+1=2
Add one gallon of pure water to one gallon of ethanol and see how many
gallons of liquid you get.
Bob Kolker
josX
>In article <aksh5o$dhc$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>This is so simple, i don't think it's even necesary to post it.
>>Why does only one straight line go through 2 points?
>>Try it.
>>SHEESH you mathematicians are stuuuuupid!
>
>demands that parallel lines never intersect.
Ah, so this nonsense we have thanks to Euclid then, the man who ursurped
geometry as if he made it.
That fith postulate is a circular wordgame: the /word/ 'parallel' means
that the 'keep at equal distance' HENCE, they don't intersect ofcourse.
There is no point, besides the arrogance of scientists.
--
jos
josX
Don't you read what i say?
I don't use axioms at all, i use reality.
When you assign names to these things, that's where an "axiom" might
come in handy, since we know "by axiom" what a word is supposed to
mean. Axioms are no more relevant to a subject then a dictionary of
the language in which the text was written (which is a derevative of
the original language, existing in reality as well btw).
Where did you all get so stupid ?
During college, being brainwashed yourselves ?
--
jos
josX
>In article <akt0na$a4a$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Same thing is happening in physics: physical theories are based upon
>>>> axiom, and not upon factual experiment, even though the axiom claims
>>>> a physical proporty of a physical object.
>>>
>>>
>>>Newton got -all- of his laws of mechanics from doing gedanken
>>>experiments, just as Einstein did.
>>
>>Read my lips:
>>
>>L I A R .
>
>What is it with crackpots being so quick to call anyone that disagrees
>with them a liar? It seems to be a general trend.
>
>Cite a source that proves your point, or admit you don't really know, so
>you're making a false accusation, which in itself makes you a liar.
Thanks for proven you are a mid-eaval Aristotelian, who only cares for
"authorative sources" instead of thinking for himself.
--
jos
Jan C. Bernauer
You just proved that with the axioms 0=[] and so on, adding of one
BEAN to another BEAN yield two BEANS.
Try it with two liters of water, one 4 °C cold, one 50°C warm, and
you´ll get into trouble.
Or try to prove multiplying to negative values. If you manage it,
perhaps something usefull for spaceman will emerge.
Or do you too think -4*-4=-16?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Gregory L. Hansen
Gah! Did you really mean to suggest you know where Newton got his
mechanics just by thinking for yourself, without so much as READING
NEWTON'S OWN WRITING ON THE MATTER? I'm sorry, but when it comes to what
Newton was thinking, I'd have to accept Newton as an authority on the
subject.
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Don't you read what i say?
> I don't use axioms at all, i use reality.
Do you? Did you know that no matter how tight you stretch a string it
still sags in the middle. Good old Newtonian mechanics will tell you a
string under the influence of gravity traces out a caternary (a curve
which resembles a parabola, but is not a parabola). To see less
stretched versions of this curve look at high tension power lines or
suspension bridges.
Now if you tell me that the minute sag does not matter, you are invoking
an assumption.
Bob Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen
You use axioms when you decide the type of geometry you'll do is the type
that can be demonstrated with a flat board and with string.
>
>When you assign names to these things, that's where an "axiom" might
>come in handy, since we know "by axiom" what a word is supposed to
>mean. Axioms are no more relevant to a subject then a dictionary of
>the language in which the text was written (which is a derevative of
>the original language, existing in reality as well btw).
>
>Where did you all get so stupid ?
"Why is everyone stupid except me?" A sign of a crackpot.
>During college, being brainwashed yourselves ?
Yes, everyone must have been brainwashed in college. It couldn't possibly
be the case that they learned things in college that you don't know.
You're really hitting all the red flags here.
Gregory L. Hansen
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>In article <aksh5o$dhc$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>This is so simple, i don't think it's even necesary to post it.
>>>Why does only one straight line go through 2 points?
>>>Try it.
>>>SHEESH you mathematicians are stuuuuupid!
>>
>>Because one of the axioms you're using is Euclid's fifth postulate, which
>>demands that parallel lines never intersect.
>
>Ah, so this nonsense we have thanks to Euclid then, the man who ursurped
>geometry as if he made it.
The geometry you demonstrate with string and board is Euclidean geometry
in two dimensions. Euclid was dead for 2000 years before people started
seriously considering relaxing the fifth postulate to see what happens.
>
>That fith postulate is a circular wordgame: the /word/ 'parallel' means
>that the 'keep at equal distance' HENCE, they don't intersect ofcourse.
Parallel means they're going in the same direction. On a flat manifold
that's equivalent to non-intersecting.
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>> That fith postulate is a circular wordgame: the /word/ 'parallel' means
> that the 'keep at equal distance' HENCE, they don't intersect ofcourse.
Shithead. The postulate says there is one and only one parallel to the
given line through a given point not on the line. Furthermore, it only
holds on a plane. On a spherical surface there are no parallels and on a
hyperbolic surface there are an infinite number of parallels to a given
line.
In a projective plane there are no parallels. All distinct lines
intersect. Two points determine a line and two lines determine a point.
Euclidean geometry is an -idealization- of flat (uncurved space). It is
not a -physical- description of the space we live in. In some cases, it
is a handy dandy approximations which has some uses. For limited areas
plane geometry is great for surveying and cutting boards.
In reality, there are no points and no lines.
Bob Kolker
Jan C. Bernauer
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <aktanr$63l$3...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>Where did you all get so stupid ?
>
>"Why is everyone stupid except me?" A sign of a crackpot.
Remembers me of a joke:
Man in a car, driving on the highway A3. Radio is on. Suddenly, a
message: Please be alert: A ghostdriver (I donæ„’ know if itæ„€ the
right word for someone driving in the wrong direction) has been
sighted on the A3.
His reaction: One? Everybody!
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
>Try as you will. In a human life time only a finite number of
>observations can be made. A finite number will not prove a universally
and a finite number of "observations" have been proven as illusions.
You are lost in illusion bob.
The clock goofed,
no matter what it "observed"
SR, GR, and QM are all based upon illusions of a clocks faults.
<LOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Kolker snips a lot so to hide his incompetance, and make this post
unreadable as a stand-alone. Cover-his-tracks if you will.
<unsnip>
>>Kolker wrote:
>>>jos wrote
>>>> They leap out of reality after enough experience with it (or experiments,
>>>> which is the exact same).
>>>
>>>There cannot be enough experiments to -prove- a universally quantified
>>>propostion. You would need to do an infinite number of experiments now
>>>and into the future.
</>
>> You just never bother to give it a try, that's all.
>
>Try as you will. In a human life time only a finite number of
>observations can be made. A finite number will not prove a universally
>quantified proposition with an infinite number of instances.
You just never bother to give it a try, that's all. Why don't you try
it sometimes. Just as Patrick would not go to the beach and hammer
himself to find reality, you don't actually want to look and do the
experiment to experience just how convincing they can be. Try it. Try
it again, try it until you are satisfied. Only an idiot will need to
try it an infinite times, but perhaps you are that idiot ?
>> Why don't you buy some beans (maybe you have them in your kitchen already!),
>> get some cups out, and experiment with basic math. Do the 1+1=2 experiment
>> for some time, you will find out the 1+1=2
>
>Add one gallon of pure water to one gallon of ethanol and see how many
>gallons of liquid you get.
You don't go to the next grade untill you can handle the more simple things.
Can you count beans already?
Can you proof 1+1=2 without axioms but from reality already?
No, so you need to do that first.
BTW, you already make a basic mistake: water is not ethanol, i said:
add beans, not add beans with bean-eating-bugs or whatever. Go back
to kindergarten to pick up again what you forgot.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> Parallel means they're going in the same direction. On a flat manifold
> that's equivalent to non-intersecting.
Yes and no. If you add an idealized "line at infinity" to the Euclidean
plane, you have a projective plane wherein all pairs of distinct lines
intersect.
Bob Kolker
Jan C. Bernauer
Ok then, so all odd numbers are prime? Letæ„€ try:
3,5,7 is prime, try some higher, 11,13, all prime.
Ok, thatæ„€ enough, all odd numbers are prime.
You would be an idiot to try more?
(In fact, since there is a infinite number of primes, and all of them
except 2 are odd, you can try very long)
>>> Why don't you buy some beans (maybe you have them in your kitchen already!),
>>> get some cups out, and experiment with basic math. Do the 1+1=2 experiment
>>> for some time, you will find out the 1+1=2
>>
>>Add one gallon of pure water to one gallon of ethanol and see how many
>>gallons of liquid you get.
>
>You don't go to the next grade untill you can handle the more simple things.
>Can you count beans already?
You still havenæ„’ showed that it works with bananas, apples, oranges,
apes, iceblocks, screws, nails, and so on. You just assume that it
does.
>Can you proof 1+1=2 without axioms but from reality already?
>No, so you need to do that first.
>
>BTW, you already make a basic mistake: water is not ethanol, i said:
>add beans, not add beans with bean-eating-bugs or whatever. Go back
>to kindergarten to pick up again what you forgot.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
josX
Not an "axiom", just a definition of the symbol "0".
> adding of one
>BEAN to another BEAN yield two BEANS.
>
>Try it with two liters of water, one 4 °C cold, one 50°C warm, and
>you´ll get into trouble.
That's why i ask you to do it with beans. Do you think i am crazy, letting
people who don't know why 1+1=2 work with water before they can handle beans ?
>Or try to prove multiplying to negative values. If you manage it,
>perhaps something usefull for spaceman will emerge.
8-9 mean "still one to get away", or "i should get 10 apples from you,
but you only have 5, so you posses now 5 claims on an apple", makes sense.
>Or do you too think -4*-4=-16?
No.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Don't you read what i say?
>> I don't use axioms at all, i use reality.
>
>Do you?
I said "beans, cups, and a word-chart", no axioms there.
> Did you know that no matter how tight you stretch a string it
>still sags in the middle. Good old Newtonian mechanics will tell you a
>string under the influence of gravity traces out a caternary (a curve
>which resembles a parabola, but is not a parabola). To see less
>stretched versions of this curve look at high tension power lines or
>suspension bridges.
Just try it instead of whine. I said use sowing thread, use a board
and nails. So i already covered gravity because if you tension right,
there will be no problem.
>Now if you tell me that the minute sag does not matter, you are invoking
>an assumption.
I said put a good tension on the wires, that will cancel out gravity
influences if you're not going too large, and these simple things are
big enough to teach you something.
Ideally this should be done in space, or in a liquid where the wires
have the same density as the liquid.
--
jos
josX
I use the kind of geometry that has a basis in reality, and not some
horrific bastard version of it that mathematicians have invented to confuse
and take-advantage.
>>When you assign names to these things, that's where an "axiom" might
>>come in handy, since we know "by axiom" what a word is supposed to
>>mean. Axioms are no more relevant to a subject then a dictionary of
>>the language in which the text was written (which is a derevative of
>>the original language, existing in reality as well btw).
>>
>>Where did you all get so stupid ?
>
>"Why is everyone stupid except me?" A sign of a crackpot.
>
>>During college, being brainwashed yourselves ?
>
>Yes, everyone must have been brainwashed in college. It couldn't possibly
>be the case that they learned things in college that you don't know.
Aparently.
>You're really hitting all the red flags here.
Ofcourse, you're brainwashing is saying "help help, i'm dying!".
--
jos
josX
>In article <aktamr$63l$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>>In article <aksh5o$dhc$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>>This is so simple, i don't think it's even necesary to post it.
>>>>Why does only one straight line go through 2 points?
>>>>Try it.
>>>>SHEESH you mathematicians are stuuuuupid!
>>>
>>>Because one of the axioms you're using is Euclid's fifth postulate, which
>>>demands that parallel lines never intersect.
>>
>>Ah, so this nonsense we have thanks to Euclid then, the man who ursurped
>>geometry as if he made it.
>
>The geometry you demonstrate with string and board is Euclidean geometry
>in two dimensions. Euclid was dead for 2000 years before people started
>seriously considering relaxing the fifth postulate to see what happens.
Euclid was a horrible man, ursurping things in reality as if they were his
own creation, and as if he should be credited with the existance of straight
lines and planes and cylinders personally.
>>That fith postulate is a circular wordgame: the /word/ 'parallel' means
>>that the 'keep at equal distance' HENCE, they don't intersect ofcourse.
>
>Parallel means they're going in the same direction. On a flat manifold
>that's equivalent to non-intersecting.
Like i said: circular wordgame. In the same direction is another way
of saying parallel is another way of saying straight and at the same
distance everywhere.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>> That fith postulate is a circular wordgame: the /word/ 'parallel' means
>> that the 'keep at equal distance' HENCE, they don't intersect ofcourse.
>
>Shithead. The postulate says there is one and only one parallel to the
>given line through a given point not on the line.
Fine, hit another nail in the board (now we have two nails connected by
a tensioned sowing-thread, and a lose nail). Put a thread on it, pull
it paralell to the original (measure the distance at two different
places and make them the same (hint, take the nail as one of those)),
then nail a nail there and tension the thread. Pull the thread to the
head of the nails. The top of the original nail is your 'point'.
Can you put another thread through the same point parallel to the original
line? No, the second line is in the way. Can you put a line through the
same point that is not parallel to the original? Yes! hence, the
physics-law about parallel lines.
> Furthermore, it only
>holds on a plane. On a spherical surface there are no parallels and on a
>hyperbolic surface there are an infinite number of parallels to a given
>line.
Ofcourse it doesn't hold on a sphere or hyperbole, and it shouldn't.
This man seriously needs some hand-on experience.
>In a projective plane there are no parallels. All distinct lines
>intersect. Two points determine a line and two lines determine a point.
>
>Euclidean geometry is an -idealization- of flat (uncurved space). It is
>not a -physical- description of the space we live in.
Ofcourse it is. That is where it came from, that is where it is usefull.
> In some cases, it
>is a handy dandy approximations which has some uses. For limited areas
>plane geometry is great for surveying and cutting boards.
>
>In reality, there are no points and no lines.
There are a lot. Hit a nail, there is your point, knot a thread to it
there is your line, pull it on tension, there is your straight line.
Put a nail in a board, knot a thread to it and a pencil to the other
side and draw on the board, there is your circle. Put clay on a cup-making
thing and spin while holding your finger, there is your circle.
--
jos
josX
I try a multiple of 3 that's not an odd:
3..6..9
Nine, gotcha. Nine is an odd but not a prime, divisable by 3.
Looking really helps.
>(In fact, since there is a infinite number of primes, and all of them
>except 2 are odd, you can try very long)
I didn't took very long, i was somewhat smart ;).
>>>> Why don't you buy some beans (maybe you have them in your kitchen already!),
>>>> get some cups out, and experiment with basic math. Do the 1+1=2 experiment
>>>> for some time, you will find out the 1+1=2
>>>
>>>Add one gallon of pure water to one gallon of ethanol and see how many
>>>gallons of liquid you get.
>>
>>You don't go to the next grade untill you can handle the more simple things.
>>Can you count beans already?
>
>You still havenæ„’ showed that it works with bananas, apples, oranges,
>apes, iceblocks, screws, nails, and so on. You just assume that it
>does.
Absolutely not. If you are disatisfied with the proof, then you must keep
looking to see if it fucks up. If you want to claim it doesn't work
for banana's or nails, you should try. Hint: it doesn't always work,
it doesn't work for instance if you do it too slowly so that the banana
will rot away between the adding-in-the-cup and the counting. So you see,
there are limits to this thing.
But please try, it will be very educational for you if you think math
works because of axiom. Because it doesn't work because of axiom, it
works because of experiment. And you repeat an experiment until you
are satisfied. I take it that you types simply were not yet satisfied
by your kindergarten-teacher when the rest of the class was ready
to move on to more difficult problems.
>>Can you proof 1+1=2 without axioms but from reality already?
>>No, so you need to do that first.
>>
>>BTW, you already make a basic mistake: water is not ethanol, i said:
>>add beans, not add beans with bean-eating-bugs or whatever. Go back
>>to kindergarten to pick up again what you forgot.
Ready to admit math is not based upon axiom, you were wrong, and that
it's based upon experiment ? If so, we can move on to f=m*a and discover
why SR is not a physics theory, but mere fantasy and extremely unlikely
of being correct. We merely need to examine postulate-2, the thing that
SR adds to the world of physics.
--
jos
Jan C. Bernauer
>>Ok then, so all odd numbers are prime? Let´s try:
>>3,5,7 is prime, try some higher, 11,13, all prime.
>>Ok, that´s enough, all odd numbers are prime.
>>You would be an idiot to try more?
>
>I try a multiple of 3 that's not an odd:
>3..6..9
>Nine, gotcha. Nine is an odd but not a prime, divisable by 3.
>
>Looking really helps.
So, perhaps, you haven´t looked for the object that brake the newton
laws?
So, no proof.
>
>>(In fact, since there is a infinite number of primes, and all of them
>>except 2 are odd, you can try very long)
>
>I didn't took very long, i was somewhat smart ;).
>
So, what makes you think is the difference between primes, where you
can make infinite number of tests and still can miss the nine, and
newton laws?
>>>>> Why don't you buy some beans (maybe you have them in your kitchen already!),
>>>>> get some cups out, and experiment with basic math. Do the 1+1=2 experiment
>>>>> for some time, you will find out the 1+1=2
>>>>
>>>>Add one gallon of pure water to one gallon of ethanol and see how many
>>>>gallons of liquid you get.
>>>
>>>You don't go to the next grade untill you can handle the more simple things.
>>>Can you count beans already?
>>
>>You still haven´t showed that it works with bananas, apples, oranges,
>>apes, iceblocks, screws, nails, and so on. You just assume that it
>>does.
>
>Absolutely not. If you are disatisfied with the proof, then you must keep
>looking to see if it fucks up. If you want to claim it doesn't work
>for banana's or nails, you should try. Hint: it doesn't always work,
Right! And that´s why you haven´t succeded in proving 1+1=2. You only
showed 1 bean + 1 bean = 2 beans.
You made the claim you can prove it without axioms. Not I have to
look, you have.
>it doesn't work for instance if you do it too slowly so that the banana
>will rot away between the adding-in-the-cup and the counting. So you see,
>there are limits to this thing.
>
>But please try, it will be very educational for you if you think math
>works because of axiom. Because it doesn't work because of axiom, it
>works because of experiment. And you repeat an experiment until you
>are satisfied. I take it that you types simply were not yet satisfied
>by your kindergarten-teacher when the rest of the class was ready
>to move on to more difficult problems.
You see the failing of your proof and still claim success?
Unf*?kingbelievable.
>>>Can you proof 1+1=2 without axioms but from reality already?
>>>No, so you need to do that first.
>>>
>>>BTW, you already make a basic mistake: water is not ethanol, i said:
>>>add beans, not add beans with bean-eating-bugs or whatever. Go back
>>>to kindergarten to pick up again what you forgot.
>
>Ready to admit math is not based upon axiom, you were wrong, and that
>it's based upon experiment ? If so, we can move on to f=m*a and discover
Haven´t you just said that the proof is not complete?
First, you used axioms by saying "adding" is putting both beans in one
cup. This isn´t actually an axiom, it´s a thesis, because you have to
prove that "putting all beans in one cup" fullfills the definition of
addition. Look in a math book to see what addition is supposed to do.
>why SR is not a physics theory, but mere fantasy and extremely unlikely
>of being correct. We merely need to examine postulate-2, the thing that
>SR adds to the world of physics.
You failed to show how to multiply negatives.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
So 1+1 = 2 doesn´t need to be correct except you assume beans?
>
>>Or try to prove multiplying to negative values. If you manage it,
>>perhaps something usefull for spaceman will emerge.
>
>8-9 mean "still one to get away", or "i should get 10 apples from you,
>but you only have 5, so you posses now 5 claims on an apple", makes sense.
This is addition, not multiplication. This won´t help spaceman.
>>Or do you too think -4*-4=-16?
>
>No.
Good.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
josX
No such object yet credibly found. Keep looking. Particles in an
accelerator? You don't know all about those particles, not nearly
enough to claim what you want to claim. It's perfectly obvious how
it works, because you got a hang for SR/GR etc *before* there were
particle-accelerators, so now you just trot out whatever you find
as proof-positive of that theory which you before took of pure faith,
discrediting you/the scientists totally as objective invastigators.
>>>(In fact, since there is a infinite number of primes, and all of them
>>>except 2 are odd, you can try very long)
>>
>>I didn't took very long, i was somewhat smart ;).
>
>So, what makes you think is the difference between primes, where you
>can make infinite number of tests and still can miss the nine, and
>newton laws?
You can also miss somewhere where Newton was wrong, but he's right on
everything we know in real life, so we know he's right on everything
we know in real life. Particle-accelerators are dealing with stuff that
we don't understand yet at all, we merely describe some bubble-tracks
or whatever. That's not de-proof of Newton or Galilei, that's a frontier
of science (insofar there's any honesty working there at all).
>>>>>> Why don't you buy some beans (maybe you have them in your kitchen already!),
>>>>>> get some cups out, and experiment with basic math. Do the 1+1=2 experiment
>>>>>> for some time, you will find out the 1+1=2
>>>>>
>>>>>Add one gallon of pure water to one gallon of ethanol and see how many
>>>>>gallons of liquid you get.
>>>>
>>>>You don't go to the next grade untill you can handle the more simple things.
>>>>Can you count beans already?
>>>
>>>You still haven´t showed that it works with bananas, apples, oranges,
>>>apes, iceblocks, screws, nails, and so on. You just assume that it
>>>does.
>>
>>Absolutely not. If you are disatisfied with the proof, then you must keep
>>looking to see if it fucks up. If you want to claim it doesn't work
>>for banana's or nails, you should try. Hint: it doesn't always work,
>
>Right! And that´s why you haven´t succeded in proving 1+1=2. You only
>showed 1 bean + 1 bean = 2 beans.
Good, you are catching on?
>You made the claim you can prove it without axioms. Not I have to
>look, you have.
incoherent.
>>it doesn't work for instance if you do it too slowly so that the banana
>>will rot away between the adding-in-the-cup and the counting. So you see,
>>there are limits to this thing.
>>
>>But please try, it will be very educational for you if you think math
>>works because of axiom. Because it doesn't work because of axiom, it
>>works because of experiment. And you repeat an experiment until you
>>are satisfied. I take it that you types simply were not yet satisfied
>>by your kindergarten-teacher when the rest of the class was ready
>>to move on to more difficult problems.
>
>You see the failing of your proof and still claim success?
>Unf*?kingbelievable.
? You claim 1+1=2 isn't right ?
>>>>Can you proof 1+1=2 without axioms but from reality already?
>>>>No, so you need to do that first.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, you already make a basic mistake: water is not ethanol, i said:
>>>>add beans, not add beans with bean-eating-bugs or whatever. Go back
>>>>to kindergarten to pick up again what you forgot.
>>
>>Ready to admit math is not based upon axiom, you were wrong, and that
>>it's based upon experiment ? If so, we can move on to f=m*a and discover
>
>Haven´t you just said that the proof is not complete?
I'm merely being honest and correct, i understand this is shocking to you.
Remain calm, drink a beer, relax.
>First, you used axioms by saying "adding" is putting both beans in one
>cup. This isn´t actually an axiom, it´s a thesis, because you have to
>prove that "putting all beans in one cup" fullfills the definition of
>addition. Look in a math book to see what addition is supposed to do.
Just add the beans Jan, nothing to be afraid off.
>>why SR is not a physics theory, but mere fantasy and extremely unlikely
>>of being correct. We merely need to examine postulate-2, the thing that
>>SR adds to the world of physics.
>
>You failed to show how to multiply negatives.
First thing first. And that doesn't seem to be reality based, but merely
convenience based given the notational etc system.
--
jos
josX
I don't assume beans, i have beans.
>>>Or try to prove multiplying to negative values. If you manage it,
>>>perhaps something usefull for spaceman will emerge.
>>
>>8-9 mean "still one to get away", or "i should get 10 apples from you,
>>but you only have 5, so you posses now 5 claims on an apple", makes sense.
>
>This is addition, not multiplication. This won´t help spaceman.
Spaceman isn't the one needing help, physics is.
>>>Or do you too think -4*-4=-16?
>>
>>No.
>
>Good.
Irrelevant. Learn the basics first before bothering with peculiarities!
Spaceman and i can proof 1+1=2, you can't, you're behind.
Spaceman and i can proof Einsteins relativity is bogus, you can't, you're
behind.
Speed up please!
--
jos
Jan C. Bernauer
wrote:
You still fail to explain it with anything other.
>
>>>>(In fact, since there is a infinite number of primes, and all of them
>>>>except 2 are odd, you can try very long)
>>>
>>>I didn't took very long, i was somewhat smart ;).
>>
>>So, what makes you think is the difference between primes, where you
>>can make infinite number of tests and still can miss the nine, and
>>newton laws?
>
>You can also miss somewhere where Newton was wrong, but he's right on
>everything we know in real life, so we know he's right on everything
>we know in real life. Particle-accelerators are dealing with stuff that
>we don't understand yet at all, we merely describe some bubble-tracks
We do understand electrons very well.
>or whatever. That's not de-proof of Newton or Galilei, that's a frontier
>of science (insofar there's any honesty working there at all).
>
>>>>>>> Why don't you buy some beans (maybe you have them in your kitchen already!),
>>>>>>> get some cups out, and experiment with basic math. Do the 1+1=2 experiment
>>>>>>> for some time, you will find out the 1+1=2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Add one gallon of pure water to one gallon of ethanol and see how many
>>>>>>gallons of liquid you get.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't go to the next grade untill you can handle the more simple things.
>>>>>Can you count beans already?
>>>>
>>>>You still haven´t showed that it works with bananas, apples, oranges,
>>>>apes, iceblocks, screws, nails, and so on. You just assume that it
>>>>does.
>>>
>>>Absolutely not. If you are disatisfied with the proof, then you must keep
>>>looking to see if it fucks up. If you want to claim it doesn't work
>>>for banana's or nails, you should try. Hint: it doesn't always work,
>>
>>Right! And that´s why you haven´t succeded in proving 1+1=2. You only
>>showed 1 bean + 1 bean = 2 beans.
>
>Good, you are catching on?
So, you haven´t proved 1+1=2.
Your claim is still open.
>
>>You made the claim you can prove it without axioms. Not I have to
>>look, you have.
>
>incoherent.
Which of the words above didn´t you understand?
>
>>>it doesn't work for instance if you do it too slowly so that the banana
>>>will rot away between the adding-in-the-cup and the counting. So you see,
>>>there are limits to this thing.
>>>
>>>But please try, it will be very educational for you if you think math
>>>works because of axiom. Because it doesn't work because of axiom, it
>>>works because of experiment. And you repeat an experiment until you
>>>are satisfied. I take it that you types simply were not yet satisfied
>>>by your kindergarten-teacher when the rest of the class was ready
>>>to move on to more difficult problems.
>>
>>You see the failing of your proof and still claim success?
>>Unf*?kingbelievable.
>
>? You claim 1+1=2 isn't right ?
Yes, you can´t say 1+1=2 without first assuming some axioms. 1+1=0 in
a MOD 2 algebra.
>
>>>>>Can you proof 1+1=2 without axioms but from reality already?
>>>>>No, so you need to do that first.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, you already make a basic mistake: water is not ethanol, i said:
>>>>>add beans, not add beans with bean-eating-bugs or whatever. Go back
>>>>>to kindergarten to pick up again what you forgot.
>>>
>>>Ready to admit math is not based upon axiom, you were wrong, and that
>>>it's based upon experiment ? If so, we can move on to f=m*a and discover
>>
>>Haven´t you just said that the proof is not complete?
>
>I'm merely being honest and correct, i understand this is shocking to you.
>Remain calm, drink a beer, relax.
So, the proof is not complete. Your claim to prove 1+1=2 without
axioms is still not shown.
>
>>First, you used axioms by saying "adding" is putting both beans in one
>>cup. This isn´t actually an axiom, it´s a thesis, because you have to
>>prove that "putting all beans in one cup" fullfills the definition of
>>addition. Look in a math book to see what addition is supposed to do.
>
>Just add the beans Jan, nothing to be afraid off.
What properties does "Addition" have in a group? Afraid to look?
>>>why SR is not a physics theory, but mere fantasy and extremely unlikely
>>>of being correct. We merely need to examine postulate-2, the thing that
>>>SR adds to the world of physics.
>>
>>You failed to show how to multiply negatives.
>
>First thing first. And that doesn't seem to be reality based, but merely
>convenience based given the notational etc system.
So, you can`t?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
Ok, 1+1=2 doesn´t need to be correct unless you have beans?
>
>>>>Or try to prove multiplying to negative values. If you manage it,
>>>>perhaps something usefull for spaceman will emerge.
>>>
>>>8-9 mean "still one to get away", or "i should get 10 apples from you,
>>>but you only have 5, so you posses now 5 claims on an apple", makes sense.
>>
>>This is addition, not multiplication. This won´t help spaceman.
>
>Spaceman isn't the one needing help, physics is.
So, you wouldn´t say someone who thinks -4*-4=-16 needs help?
>
>>>>Or do you too think -4*-4=-16?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Good.
>
>Irrelevant. Learn the basics first before bothering with peculiarities!
>Spaceman and i can proof 1+1=2, you can't, you're behind.
Your proof is still not complete. 1 bean put to another bean is two
beans, sometimes. Ok, so, now, prove that 1+1=2.
>Spaceman and i can proof Einsteins relativity is bogus, you can't, you're
>behind.
>Speed up please!
So, proving Einsteins relativity wrong is easier than -4*-4 != -16 ?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> I said put a good tension on the wires, that will cancel out gravity
> influences if you're not going too large,
No it wont. Besides a wire is not a line.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Euclid was a horrible man, ursurping things in reality as if they were his
> own creation, and as if he should be credited with the existance of straight
> lines and planes and cylinders personally.
He was a chronicler of Greek geometry gathering into one place various
pieces of geometrical work (of others) and adding a few of his own. If
it were not for antholigizers like Euclid we would have no knowlege of
Greek geometry. It would all be scattered to the wind and time.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> There are a lot. Hit a nail, there is your point, knot a thread to it
> there is your line, pull it on tension, there is your straight line.
> Put a nail in a board, knot a thread to it and a pencil to the other
> side and draw on the board, there is your circle. Put clay on a cup-making
> thing and spin while holding your finger, there is your circle.
>
Has it occurred to you that threads are NOT lines and nail are NOT points.
Probably not.
Bob Kolker
josX
Try beans first, then we can expand our exploration.
>>>>>Or try to prove multiplying to negative values. If you manage it,
>>>>>perhaps something usefull for spaceman will emerge.
>>>>
>>>>8-9 mean "still one to get away", or "i should get 10 apples from you,
>>>>but you only have 5, so you posses now 5 claims on an apple", makes sense.
>>>
>>>This is addition, not multiplication. This won´t help spaceman.
>>
>>Spaceman isn't the one needing help, physics is.
>
>So, you wouldn´t say someone who thinks -4*-4=-16 needs help?
-4*-4 is a bit of a problem, because 'times -4' is a negative of
'times 4', where the 4 simply means "take 4 cups, and put in as
much of the amount you want to multiply":
'*' = bean
'_' = claims-on-bean (debet beans)
4*4 = [****]*([..][..][..][..])=[****][****][****][****]=[****************]
beans
-4*4 = [____]_([..][..][..][..])=[____][____][____][____]=[________________]
claims-on-beans
(which you could easily write as positive numbers, just change the meaning
of the thing you're counting.)
But here comes the problem: a negative-bean can be 'a claim on a bean',
but what is a 'negative bucket'.
So, here we are down to notational issues, what is smart to do, make
an agreement to do -4*-4=-16 or -4*-4=16 and use it consistantly.
I don't claim this is right, maybe there are very good reasons for
-4*-4=16, but i can't find them directly and as simply as the other
parts of math, so i think it's a notational choice until i discover
something else.
>>>>>Or do you too think -4*-4=-16?
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>Good.
>>
>>Irrelevant. Learn the basics first before bothering with peculiarities!
>>Spaceman and i can proof 1+1=2, you can't, you're behind.
>
>Your proof is still not complete. 1 bean put to another bean is two
>beans, sometimes. Ok, so, now, prove that 1+1=2.
Why don't you try it with beans, then you have proved it to you.
>>Spaceman and i can proof Einsteins relativity is bogus, you can't, you're
>>behind.
>>Speed up please!
>
>So, proving Einsteins relativity wrong is easier than -4*-4 != -16 ?
Yes.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> I said put a good tension on the wires, that will cancel out gravity
>> influences if you're not going too large,
>
Did you try? I see you don't or else you would know it would.
You were this much trouble in kindergarten already weren't you?
That would explain why you forgot why 1+1=2.
> Besides a wire is not a line.
It is, it is more a line then a line in your head.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>> own creation, and as if he should be credited with the existance of straight
>> lines and planes and cylinders personally.
>
>
>pieces of geometrical work (of others) and adding a few of his own.
That explains why he is merely doing word-games and not real thinking, it
fits a collector of words.
> If
>it were not for antholigizers like Euclid we would have no knowlege of
>Greek geometry. It would all be scattered to the wind and time.
Yeah?
We would have exactly the same geometry, save a few other names, and we
would perhaps be a little back on scheduele compared to where we are now.
Then again, we are now in a degenerative cycle as far as physics and
mathematics basics and truth-percentage go, so perhaps we would be better
off because we would realize more what those basics actually are hadn't we
just copied the Greeks work.
Getting back to the original topic of interest:
Can you proof to us yet:
relativity of simultaneity
lengthcontraction
timedilation
postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
relativistic addition of velocities
Can't ?
--
jos
Uncle Al
>
> Ronald Stepp wrote:
> >> This is so simple, i don't think it's even necesary to post it.
> >> Why does only one straight line go through 2 points?
> >> Try it.
> >> SHEESH you mathematicians are stuuuuupid!
> >
>
> Axiom-free Geometry:
> -------------------
> Props:
> - sowing-thread
> - table/old board
> - nails
>
> Put two nails in the board.
> Knot the sowing-thread from one to the other, pull tight so the rope
> is under tension, pull the thread to the heads of the nails (that are
> your points/places).
>
> Viola: a straight line connecting two points.
Try it on a toroid, moron.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Jan C. Bernauer
Not an answer.
>>>>>>Or try to prove multiplying to negative values. If you manage it,
>>>>>>perhaps something usefull for spaceman will emerge.
>>>>>
>>>>>8-9 mean "still one to get away", or "i should get 10 apples from you,
>>>>>but you only have 5, so you posses now 5 claims on an apple", makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>This is addition, not multiplication. This won´t help spaceman.
>>>
>>>Spaceman isn't the one needing help, physics is.
>>
>>So, you wouldn´t say someone who thinks -4*-4=-16 needs help?
>
>-4*-4 is a bit of a problem, because 'times -4' is a negative of
>'times 4', where the 4 simply means "take 4 cups, and put in as
>much of the amount you want to multiply":
>'*' = bean
>'_' = claims-on-bean (debet beans)
>4*4 = [****]*([..][..][..][..])=[****][****][****][****]=[****************]
> beans
>-4*4 = [____]_([..][..][..][..])=[____][____][____][____]=[________________]
> claims-on-beans
>(which you could easily write as positive numbers, just change the meaning
>of the thing you're counting.)
>
>But here comes the problem: a negative-bean can be 'a claim on a bean',
>but what is a 'negative bucket'.
Like, not having a claim?
>
>So, here we are down to notational issues, what is smart to do, make
>an agreement to do -4*-4=-16 or -4*-4=16 and use it consistantly.
you can´t consistenly define -4*-4=-16. Why?
You define -1*x= -x , right?
You define -1*-x= x ?
You define -1*4=-4 ?
you define 4*-4=-16?
so you have -4*-4=-1*4*-4=-1*-16=16
>I don't claim this is right, maybe there are very good reasons for
>-4*-4=16, but i can't find them directly and as simply as the other
>parts of math, so i think it's a notational choice until i discover
>something else.
You need the axiom -1*x=-x and -1*-x=x.
>
>>>>>>Or do you too think -4*-4=-16?
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>Good.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. Learn the basics first before bothering with peculiarities!
>>>Spaceman and i can proof 1+1=2, you can't, you're behind.
>>
>>Your proof is still not complete. 1 bean put to another bean is two
>>beans, sometimes. Ok, so, now, prove that 1+1=2.
>
>Why don't you try it with beans, then you have proved it to you.
No, I would have proved that 1 bean and 1 bean put together yield 2
beans. Then I would need to define that "put together" is addition.
>
>>>Spaceman and i can proof Einsteins relativity is bogus, you can't, you're
>>>behind.
>>>Speed up please!
>>
>>So, proving Einsteins relativity wrong is easier than -4*-4 != -16 ?
>
>Yes.
How can you disprove anything which uses mathematics internally (as
you claim) without first understanding math?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
A line is infinite.
Please give me an infinite wire.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
josX
You couldn't imagine an infinite wire, nobody can.
2 meter of sowing thread is all you need for your first lessons, don't
overexcite yourself with this too soon.
--
jos
josX
>>>>>>>you惻l get into trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's why i ask you to do it with beans. Do you think i am crazy, letting
>>>>>>people who don't know why 1+1=2 work with water before they can handle beans ?
>>>>>
>>>>I don't assume beans, i have beans.
>>>
>>
>>Try beans first, then we can expand our exploration.
>
>Not an answer.
So good an answer, you are spellbound by it, unable to walk, shaking on
the knees, desperate for a zip of water to cool off your fastened heartbeat.
It'll pass. But i agree: it's beautiful, deceptively simple and elegant.
It's ... ECNEICS ...
<snip irrelevancies about negative numbers, not on the board for people who
can't proof 1+1=2 yet, maybe later, maybe never, suprise us>
>>>>>>>Or do you too think -4*-4=-16?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good.
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant. Learn the basics first before bothering with peculiarities!
>>>>Spaceman and i can proof 1+1=2, you can't, you're behind.
>>>
>>>Your proof is still not complete. 1 bean put to another bean is two
>>>beans, sometimes. Ok, so, now, prove that 1+1=2.
>>
>>Why don't you try it with beans, then you have proved it to you.
>
>No, I would have proved that 1 bean and 1 bean put together yield 2
>beans. Then I would need to define that "put together" is addition.
Correct, you are learning as-we-speak.
>>>>Spaceman and i can proof Einsteins relativity is bogus, you can't, you're
>>>>behind.
>>>>Speed up please!
>>>
>>>So, proving Einsteins relativity wrong is easier than -4*-4 != -16 ?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>How can you disprove anything which uses mathematics internally (as
>you claim) without first understanding math?
incoherent.
--
jos
Spaceman
>Or do you too think -4*-4=-16?
Jan,
What is g*g=?
what is h*h=
what is q*q=
All the above.
are proving your
-x*-x=x as wrong.
simply by trying this.
-x=q
Don't you know math yet,
never learned "number lines" huh?
-x | | | | | | | | | 0 | | | | | | | | | x
=
q | | | | | | | | | 0 | | | | | | | | | x
The above proves you wrong.
only fools can't see so.
so...
-x*-x=-x^2
and
-4*-4 = -16
your math lacks reality so it really is "just crap without proof"
BTW:
dingbat!
There are NO NEGATIVES! .
that is why
-x can = q
DUH!
Never took the basic algebra huh?
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>Just try it instead of whine. I said use sowing thread, use a board
>and nails. So i already covered gravity because if you tension right,
>there will be no problem.
>
Would not even matter about gravity,
just spin the whole contraption so the line follows a gravitational path.
(straight up) (levels work great for such simple Earth matters)
:)
>I said put a good tension on the wires, that will cancel out gravity
Like I said,
90 degrees to gravity cancels it's effects on the string for such
sideways (off line) motion anyways.
:)
I think I got one better Joe!
(hang a weight on a string (plum bob) in a vacuum chamber)
<LOL>
A= top of string ..
B= bottom of string
Guess what type of (supposed not possible) line!
<LOL>
:)
Spaceman
>No it wont. Besides a wire is not a line.
OK,
you are right about "that version"
but,
Plumbobs still say you are wrong about something.
IS that plum enough for ya, Bob.
<LOL>
Spaceman
>On a spherical surface there are no parallels <snipped rest of crap>
WRONG!!!!!!!~
TOTALLY WRONG!
I see you are braindead.
>In a projective plane there are no parallels.
Again...
you are cooked or something aren't you?
Where are you getting these bad jokes?
>In reality, there are no points and no lines.
<ROFLOL>
It's correct but very stupidly stated..
In reality, lines are paths and points are object areas.
they are there, but some reality is what we use them for!
Now I see why you are lost,
You are always ignoring the important part of
linking the math to a reality.
that must be why you have so much SciFi instead of reality
coming out of your posts..
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020901173912...@mb-ba.aol.com...
AbsFab
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Dingbat
Dirk Vdm
josX
The only thing we're missing is a webcam watching our relativity
morons working the beans and the ropes hehe.
Would they realize they are back in Kindergarten?
--
jos
Andy
> -x*-x=-x^2
> and
> -4*-4 = -16
> your math lacks reality so it really is "just crap without proof"
Must...resist...urge to mock.... Must...suppress laughter....
Andy
Spaceman
>Has it occurred to you that threads are NOT lines and nail are NOT points.
DING DING DING!
brainwashed mind detected...
DING DING DING!
Your reality programming has been lost Bob,
please reboot your brain.
Spaceman
>Your proof is still not complete.
Only to moronic trolls like you Jan.
Jan,
The Clock Malfunctioned.
You just can't accept that "scientific" fact huh?
You just don't get the "mechanics of anything huh?
You are accepting "time changing" as a cause huh?
<ROFLOL>
If you do,
You deserve the "clueless human" award this year!
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aku2lg$q80$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Spaceman wrote:
[snip]
> ><LOL>
> >:)
>
> The only thing we're missing is a webcam watching our relativity
> morons working the beans and the ropes hehe.
>
> Would they realize they are back in Kindergarten?
Come on jos, explain him about -4 * -4 = -16.
You are the only one he might listen to.
Most recent evidence:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Dingbat
We know you can do it.
Do you have the balls to try it?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020901180701...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> >From: Jan C. Bernauer taggedfo...@web.de
>
> >Your proof is still not complete.
>
> Only to moronic trolls like you Jan.
>
> Jan,
> The Clock Malfunctioned.
You are quite mistaken: it goofed.
Dirk Vdm
Jan C. Bernauer
>Jan C. Bernauer wrote:
>>On 1 Sep 2002 19:42:02 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>>josX wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I said put a good tension on the wires, that will cancel out gravity
>>>>> influences if you're not going too large,
>>>>
>>>> Besides a wire is not a line.
>>>
>>>Did you try? I see you don't or else you would know it would.
>>>
>>>You were this much trouble in kindergarten already weren't you?
>>>That would explain why you forgot why 1+1=2.
>>>
>>>> Besides a wire is not a line.
>>>
>>>It is, it is more a line then a line in your head.
>>
>>A line is infinite.
>>Please give me an infinite wire.
>
>You couldn't imagine an infinite wire, nobody can.
I can, no problem
>2 meter of sowing thread is all you need for your first lessons, don't
>overexcite yourself with this too soon.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>> Besides a wire is not a line.
>>
>
> It is, it is more a line then a line in your head.
A line has no thickness. Wire does.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> Can you proof to us yet:
> relativity of simultaneity
> lengthcontraction
> timedilation
> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
> relativistic addition of velocities
The relativity of simultaneity follows from the Lorentz transform. I
already gave you the reference.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Jan C. Bernauer wrote:
>
> A line is infinite.
> Please give me an infinite wire.
Euclidean geometry uses line segments. It is one of the postulates that
a line segment can be extended to any desired length, but this is not a
completed infinite line. The Greek mathematicians did not like the
concept of a completed infinity.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>The only thing we're missing is a webcam watching our relativity
>morons working the beans and the ropes hehe.
<LOL>
>Would they realize they are back in Kindergarten?
>--
They might still not realize it.
:)
I would love to watch them "on camera" trying to figure
a V6 firing order without a diagram and with an "unmarked engine"
PS..
I know I can...
I would bet many bucks..
they could not get it running within a week!
:)
<ROFLOL>
They truly are mechanically clueless.
:)
Spaceman
>Come on jos, explain him about -4 * -4 = -16.
Dirk,
You don't get it?
BOTH ARE RIGHT!
I am pulling the mathheads chains..
<LOL>
without the real.
math can do magic.
2+2=1
2 tires + 2 tires
= 1 set if they are the same sizes.
The math is not worth CRAP until you plce reals
and with reals.
There ARE NO NEGATIVES.
the -x can equal a q and show you wrong.
Stop thinking math has any final word without a reality
to back it up.
Jos won't bother with the "math without the real jokes"
We want the "physical proof"
not the "fuzzy math jokes"
Spaceman
>Must...resist...urge to mock.... Must...suppress laughter....
Go ahead,
laugh,
but...
Don't laugh too hard.
-x = q
and
If you don't get that.
My starship just blew your time machine up!
<ROFLOL>
Spaceman
and Jan actually broke a bit of brainwashing to post.....
>>No, I would have proved that 1 bean and 1 bean put together yield 2
>>beans. Then I would need to define that "put together" is addition.
>
>Correct, you are learning as-we-speak.
>
Now if Jan could just get
*input new AI*
put together miles per second.
miles just like beans
miles still add fine.
*update old AI,
no light wall.
186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps
yes addition of "sames" works perfect..
all the time.
*end input*
program reboot.
Have A Nice Day.
:)
Spaceman
>I can, no problem
<LOL>
You can imagine an infinite wire,
but not a malfunctioning clock?
<ROFLOL>
Spaceman
>A line has no thickness. Wire does.
>
Bob Kolker = THICK LINE!
you are wrong.
lines have "thicknesss"
or..
they are "not even there at all"
(imaginary lines can exist as such, but... so can easter bunnies the same way.)
James Hunter
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> >From: "Dirk Van de moortel"
> and with reals.
> There ARE NO NEGATIVES.
> the -x can equal a q and show you wrong.
> Stop thinking math has any final word without a reality
> to back it up.
>
> Jos won't bother with the "math without the real jokes"
>
> We want the "physical proof"
> not the "fuzzy math jokes"
Physics want linear, but that was known
15 billion years ago, since it is well-known
that physicists are low IQ conceptualing MORONS.
Q.E.D.
So, it's onward to *Mars*, ye olde Sirens of Venus Faggots.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020901185055...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> >From: Jan C. Bernauer taggedfo...@web.de
>
> >I can, no problem
>
> <LOL>
> You can imagine an infinite wire,
> but not a malfunctioning clock?
don't you mean "a goofing clock"?
> <ROFLOL>
You floor must be incredibly filthy by now.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Andy" <aosb...@REMOVENOSPAMmail.desy.de> wrote in message news:aku232$7bvgo$1...@claire.desy.de...
Yeah, you heard the man:
-x = q
and that is all there is to it.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020901183326...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> >From: "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> >Come on jos, explain him about -4 * -4 = -16.
>
> Dirk,
> You don't get it?
>
> BOTH ARE RIGHT!
No, he does not have the balls to do it.
Dirk Vdm
josX
So we agree completely, nice.
--
jos
josX
Incorrect: it has so little thickness that it doesn't matter to the
problem. Take a sowing-thread and keep at the limit of your lengthmeasuring
device (most use mm), then the lines have a zero thickness. Or use
spidersilk if you really want to be right on the money.
--
jos
josX
I'm not sensitive to authority arguments.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> So we agree completely, nice.
If you agree completely with Spaceman, then you must also
believe that -4 * -4 = -16. Do you?
Spaceman
>So we agree completely, nice.
yup,
without the real,
2+2 can equal billions of answers!
:)
Spaceman
>If you agree completely with Spaceman, then you must also
>believe that -4 * -4 = -16. Do you?
-x...0...x = q...0...x
Still don't get it huh?
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Incorrect: it has so little thickness that it doesn't matter to the
> problem.
You have made an unproven leap to the abstract, you rascal you!
How do you know it does not matter. That is an -assumption- you have made.
Axiom free, my ass.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sensitive to authority arguments.
It is a place where you can see the proof written down. I am not going
to write what is already written.
Bob Kolker
>
josX
Nice snipping. Is it part of your overall strategy to make posts hard
to read, and to remove parts that disprove right away what you waffle ?
Didn't i say "use spidersilk and normal measuring equipment which has
mm-marks and go at that first" ?
I think i did, did i?
--
jos
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> Ronald Stepp wrote:
> >jos wrote:
> >> This is so simple, i don't think it's even necesary to post it.
> >> Why does only one straight line go through 2 points?
> >> Try it.
> >> SHEESH you mathematicians are stuuuuupid!
> >
> >Explain, please so we know what you are talking about..
>
> Axiom-free Geometry:
> -------------------
> Props:
> - sowing-thread
> - table/old board
> - nails
>
> Put two nails in the board.
> Knot the sowing-thread from one to the other, pull tight so the rope
> is under tension, pull the thread to the heads of the nails (that are
> your points/places).
>
> Viola: a straight line connecting two points.
>
Define "straight line."
Patrick
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aksjnt$gp6$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >I take a long thread and I connect the nails by going round the earth.
> >Voila, another straight line connecting the same points.
>
> No, many straight line-segments.
> Go back to Kindergarten!
>
> >> Now, try to put another thread there. You can't, or you would push
> >> the other thread away. If you try, you will connect to other points,
> >> but not the same points.
> >
> >Idiot. Learn how to crawl before you try to outrun a cheetah.
> >Go take your medication
>
> I could outcrawl a snail before i could walk, more i don't need here.
> --
> jos
Should we tell JosX that he's slipping down the
same slippery slope as Archimedes Plutonium?
Patrick
josX
Hammer two nails in a board, knot a sowing-thread in between, pull
tight.
*that* <points finger> is a sewing-thread in the shape of a straight line.
Knot lose, throw on the floor curling it up
*that* <points finger> is a sewing-thread NOT in the shape of a straight line.
Repeat with other ropes or even with spider-silk until the pattern sinks in.
--
jos
Spaceman
Dirk Van de moortel
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message news:3D736FE4...@asu.edu...
>
>
> josX wrote:
>
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > >Idiot. Learn how to crawl before you try to outrun a cheetah.
> > >Go take your medication
> >
> > I could outcrawl a snail before i could walk, more i don't need here.
> > --
> > jos
>
> Should we tell JosX that he's slipping down the
> same slippery slope as Archimedes Plutonium?
>
> Patrick
We should tell him that, if he broke his mind over Einstein's
original work, he should - for a change - read Newton's and
break whatever he's got left to break in the first place, over
that ;-)
Sorry Patrick, couldn't resist.
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> Define "straight line."
Historically the term straight line comes from the old (germanic)
english, strichted linen, or stretched linen (thread). Yes indeed a
stretched wire or thread does suggest a straight line. It is a good
concrete instance of a mental (forgive my use of the term) concept.
Bob Kolker
josX
So you knew all along that geometry doesn't need axioms, you were just
trolling for fun ?
Where do you suppose that "mental concept" comes from in the first place.
You imagine someone suddenly Postulates it, and then verifies it by
stretching a linen ?
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> So you knew all along that geometry doesn't need axioms, you were just
> trolling for fun ?
Are you really that dense, fuzzwit. Geometry and math is about proving
theorems from axioms.
Yes, a material stretched linen thread resembles our mental image of a
straight line. Idealization and abstraction is how we do mathematics and
science.
Bob Kolker
josX
So, you admit there are no axioms, good.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> So, you admit there are no axioms, good.
Good Lord! Hayzoos Marimba! Virgin Mary on a Pegleg (which is why they
called her Hopalong Chastity). You are totally out of touch. No axioms,
no math (or physics).
Bob Kolker
josX
Then how come i don't need any for my physics/math ?
--
jos
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
JosX, you're whole argument is merely an
exercise in trying to found "knowledge" in
science without first forming a FORMAL
theoretical system. That's NOT how science
gets done these days. It isn't how Newton
did it either.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
Ah, an OPERATIONAL definition!!
Patrick