On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:23:41 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:57:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:14:40 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
WolframAlpha is the gold standard for math applications, as such it produces
the correct result as opposed to the incorrect result
AI bots are only as good as their programmers, and they can have the same
biases. A fussy theoretical mathematician my well be wringing his hands about
the domain of 1/1/x, but more practical mathematicians, like L'Hopital and Newton,
find ways around the problem and forge ahead.
But you are not a mathematician,I have a BS in Math, a BS in engineering, an MS in physics with a minor in mathematical
physics
Gary, you are just a crank desperate to deceive.I've deceived no one. Dono is projecting his dishonesty again.
produced by the imbecile Gary Harnagel who got only a C-grade in calculus.
Well, imbeciles don't even get C's in calculus :-))
Well, after your "performance" in this forum, you clearly qualify as an imbecile.
All my math grades were A's except for ADVANCED calculus,
and I had little patience with fussy hand-wringing.
It did show , given the imbecilities you posted in this forum.
Anybody following this thread could figure that I produced the correct result
(change of sign at u=c^2/v), confirmed by the gold standard of calculus
(WolframAlpha) while deceptive crank Gary Harnagel produced yet another one
of his pathetic imbecilities.
I wonder which WolframAlpha site he's referring to.
The one that I posted , here is the link once again. Choke on it, lying piece of shit:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28x-3%29%2F%281-3x%29%2Fsqrt%28%28x-3%29%5E2%2F%281-3x%29%5E2-1%29I found it and dismissed it long ago.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:27:30 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:23:41 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
Unfortunately, you turned into a full-fledged crank, Gary.
Gary, you are just a crank desperate to deceive.
I've deceived no one. Dono is projecting his dishonesty again.
Well, after your "performance" in this forum, you clearly qualify as an imbecile.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28x-3%29%2F%281-3x%29%2Fsqrt%28%28x-3%29%5E2%2F%281-3x%29%5E2-1%29
I found it and dismissed it long ago.
Because it contradicts your crank posts.
Look at the graph, deceptive crank. See the function going negative? Look at the "range" .
See it going negative? Choke on it, deceptive crank.
Choke on it, deceptive crank.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28x-3%29%2F%281-3x%29%2Fsqrt%28%28x-3%29%5E2%2F%281-3x%29%5E2-1%29
I found it and dismissed it long ago.
Because it contradicts your crank posts.A lie. It has nothing to do with my crap paper or anything discussed here.
Look at the graph, deceptive crank. See the function going negative? Look at the "range" .
See it going negative? Choke on it, deceptive crank.
This has nothing to do with E' = \gamma mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) or p' = etc.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:34:35 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
It has nothing to do with DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 or anything discussed here.
Tsk, tsk! Dono still doesn't get it. He rejects the application of calculus in both places
because he doesn't understand the very basis of calculus. That makes HIM the crank,
which is the way he's been behaving.
Actually, it does, hardened crank, it shows hoe p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) changes sign.
Look at the graph, deceptive crank. See the function going negative? Look at the "range" .
See it going negative? Choke on it, deceptive crank.
This has nothing to do with E' = \gamma mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) or p' = etc.
Actually it represents p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1), demented old fart.
p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) ... EQ. (2)
it cancels sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2] in the numerator with (1 - uv/c^2) in the denominator. EXACTLY as
I've been saying all along.
Actually, it shows that the "WolframAlpha gold standard" follows PEMDAS, whereas the 4MF
fails to do so.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:21:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Not proof. That is the difference. What is the evidence they are faster than light?I have presented this before, Mitch:
(2) Neutrino mass measurements allow the probability (22%) that m^2 < 0.
You persist in the same imbecility .
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 4:52:30 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
But the REAL misunderstanding is that neutrino physics has little to do with
my crap paper published in the predatory journal (Tachyons, the Four- Momentum Formalism and Simultaneity) because that paper shows that
tachyons violate causality There are four other conclusions in the paper, all shown to be pure crankery
Agreed
[Dono denied physics and math again]
Math is the language of physics
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 310 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 33:08:01 |
Calls: | 6,949 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,397 |
Messages: | 5,441,637 |