"Non-Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Round has its straight radial order...The idea that a curved path of a physical object can be broken down into infinitesimal straight lines such that it does not involve accelerations and thus can be regarded as uniform linear motion is a pseudo-scientific denial of physics that Einstein
so does a QM interval path...
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Round has its straight radial order...Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
so does a QM interval path...
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Round has its straight radial order...Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
so does a QM interval path...
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.Yes, I have found his writing helpful even though he accepts some of relativity, such as time dilation.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.Rotation is the only inertial frame example.Round has its straight radial order...Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
so does a QM interval path...
Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.Rotation is the only inertial frame example.Round has its straight radial order...Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
so does a QM interval path...
Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peerLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:31:57 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
If not, then you cannot have uniform linear motion so that was Einstein's causative factor.What is your example of speed that isn't changing?Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.Rotation is the only inertial frame example.Round has its straight radial order...Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
so does a QM interval path...
Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
Where is a real world example of no speed change?
How can you have an inertial frame without that?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:49:47 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:31:57 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
Your cause for time dilation then becomes any motion.What is your example of speed that isn't changing?Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.Rotation is the only inertial frame example.Round has its straight radial order...Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
so does a QM interval path...
Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
Where is a real world example of no speed change?
How can you have an inertial frame without that?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:31:57 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
Your cause for time dilation then becomes any motion.What is your example of speed that isn't changing?Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.Rotation is the only inertial frame example.Round has its straight radial order...Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
so does a QM interval path...
Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
Where is a real world example of no speed change?
How can you have an inertial frame without that?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peerLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peerLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peerLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:at all.
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peerLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.If you had read with any comprehension you would know the point is there is no point to non-Euclidean geometry (other than moronic heuristic purposes).
--
Jan
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige instead of knowledge.
--
Jan
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
--
Jan
Relativity is prestigious nonsense. It does not confer prestige in the eyes of people with knowledge.
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.Relativity is prestigious nonsense. It does not confer prestige in the eyes of people with knowledge.
--
Jan
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.
--
Jan
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
--
Jan
The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.
On 11/19/2023 12:53 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
Foolish old Jan never got around to telling us what IS the point of curved geometry. Because he doesn't even know hizself.
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
--
Jan
The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.Looks like poor Laurence is having a meltdown, spewing replies to Jan's post. Maybe Laurence thinks the tree really exists?
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use, often.You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
--You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige instead of knowledge.
Jan
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peerLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
[ … ]
(btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
Winston Churchill ;-))
)
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of aLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:15:32 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
--
Jan
Relativity is prestigious nonsense. It does not confer prestige in the eyes of people with knowledge.You, obviously, are not a person with knowledge regarding physics. You don't even know first-year physics!
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:25:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:15:32 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
--
Jan
Relativity is prestigious nonsense. It does not confer prestige in the eyes of people with knowledge.
You, obviously, are not a person with knowledge regarding physics. You don't even know first-year physics!
Are you still in class paul. You do belong there...
On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
(btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
Winston Churchill ;-))
)
Crazy as a loon
Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
(btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
Winston Churchill ;-))
)
Crazy as a loon
Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.
But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.
the idea behind it was this:
Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
is too young for this type of crime.
But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
his hands than any other politician before or after.
So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is similar
to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of Africa.
These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them 'good' killers.
These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
-nevertheless- killers afterwards.
Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
named Jenny Jerome.
This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as
'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.
And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...
On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
(btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
Winston Churchill ;-))
)
Crazy as a loon
Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.
But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.
the idea behind it was this:
Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
is too young for this type of crime.
But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
his hands than any other politician before or after.
So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is
similar to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of
Africa.
These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them
'good' killers.
These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
-nevertheless- killers afterwards.
Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
named Jenny Jerome.
This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as
'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.
And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...
I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have been better to say even crazier than a loon.
I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the Rolling Stones?
On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ â•œ ]
(btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
Winston Churchill ;-))
)
Crazy as a loon
Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.
But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.
the idea behind it was this:
Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
is too young for this type of crime.
But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
his hands than any other politician before or after.
So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is similar
to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of Africa.
These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them 'good' killers.
These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
-nevertheless- killers afterwards.
Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert, later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York, named Jenny Jerome.
This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as 'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.
And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...
I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have
been better to say even crazier than a loon.
I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the Rolling Stones?
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
If you had read with any comprehension you would know the point is there is no point to non-Euclidean geometry (other than moronic heuristic purposes).
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
--
Jan
Euclidean geometry is based on an assumption, which is illogic and not supported by nature.
To have three rectilinear axes requires straight lines and right angles.
But nature does not 'like' right angles. 90° is just one example of an
angle and no phenomenon in nature uses this particular number.
Also streight lines or circles are not found in nature very often.
Those are human artifacts and not a feature of the world around us.
So: what would be a better and more natural way to describe positions???
Well, first you need an 'anchor' point and known directions.
On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a position.
This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.
These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we live
on and where we like to define positions.
(The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)
TH
So you are talking about celestial navigation.
I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.
Am 20.11.2023 um 09:25 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:No, certainly not, because you don't sound like a rock-musician.
Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ â€¦ ]
(btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
Winston Churchill ;-))
)
Crazy as a loon
Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.
But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.
the idea behind it was this:
Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
is too young for this type of crime.
But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
his hands than any other politician before or after.
So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is
similar to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of
Africa.
These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them
'good' killers.
These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
-nevertheless- killers afterwards.
Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
named Jenny Jerome.
This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as
'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.
And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...
I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have been
better to say even crazier than a loon.
I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same
country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the
Rolling Stones?
Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy as you think.
Churchill had certain odd habits, which resemble in a way the mindset of occultists like Alisteir Crowley.
He was also very racist and had at least a few sympathies for naziism.
But much more than this, there exist two books, which mentioned Churchill:
If these books are correct, than Churchills 'head-count' would also
include the millions murdered by Hitler and Stalin, what would add up to
a collosal number, that can hardly be surpassed by anyone else.
Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
Euclidean geometry is based on an assumption, which is illogic and not
supported by nature.
To have three rectilinear axes requires straight lines and right angles.
But nature does not 'like' right angles. 90° is just one example of an
angle and no phenomenon in nature uses this particular number.
Also streight lines or circles are not found in nature very often.
Those are human artifacts and not a feature of the world around us.
So: what would be a better and more natural way to describe positions???
Well, first you need an 'anchor' point and known directions.
On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a position.
This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.
These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we
live on and where we like to define positions.
(The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)
TH
So you are talking about celestial navigation.
I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.
Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was
most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy
as you think.
No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.
Am 22.11.2023 um 16:59 schrieb Volney:
Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was
most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy
as you think.
No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.
You simply don't understand the scientific method.
This method is based on the idea, that you should make up your mind and
set up a hypothesis, which could eventually explain a certain
observation.
Then you need to test your hypothesis, e.g. in an experiment.
But usually you would first try to disprove it by showing, that it is actually impossible what you assume.
E.g. if you show, that Winston Churchill could not possibly have been
in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, you had made the assumption impossible and had rejected that claim.
But neither experiment nor such a proof are possible, because Churchill
had been in London in that era and experiments are impossible today.
so: what next?
Maybe we need to talk to witnesses or collect other evidence.
But that's also impossible, because the events are longer ago than
people usually live.
Maybe we ask contemporaries about their impressions.
Not possible neither, but we have contemporary statements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxFaWrvgneQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN9aaZDI-No
...
TH
Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
So you are talking about celestial navigation.
I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.
Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than
Euclidean.
Now Euclidean geometry does not fit to this picture, because Euclidean
space is timeless, while spheric geometry would.
Am 22.11.2023 um 16:59 schrieb Volney:
Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was
most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy
as you think.
No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.
You simply don't understand the scientific method.
This method is based on the idea, that you should make up your mind and
set up a hypothesis, which could eventually explain a certain observation.
Then you need to test your hypothesis, e.g. in an experiment.
Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a
position.
This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.
These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we
live on and where we like to define positions.
(The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)
TH
So you are talking about celestial navigation.
I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.
Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than
Euclidean.
The idea behind Euiclidean geometry is what Newton called 'absolute space'.
I personally regard this concept as wrong.
I would like to take spacetime of GR as 'prior' and regard our 'space'Gobbledygook.
as a mere optical illusion.
The universe as we see it, is actually stacked in time, hence is not
real, but a picture.
You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige
instead of knowledge.
The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use, often.
On November 19, patdolan wrote:Well, Pat, universities will accept tuition for teaching anything people imagine to be prestigious.
You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige
instead of knowledge.
The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use, often.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxrlcLktcxU
--
Rich
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of aLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peerLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."Peer review enforces ignorant dogmas in dark back rooms in secret. It is a censorious mechanism hostile to the truth.
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:13:40 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
Well, Pat, universities will accept tuition for teaching anything people imagine to be prestigious.You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use, often.--You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige instead of knowledge.
Jan
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On 11/19/2023 12:53 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
It is only a reification fallacy.
You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
--
Jan
Foolish old Jan never got around to telling us what IS the point of curved geometry. Because he doesn't even know hizself.The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.Looks like poor Laurence is having a meltdown, spewing replies to Jan's post. Maybe Laurence thinks the tree really exists?
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved
famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of aLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations,
Den 23.11.2023 07:45, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a
position.
This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.
These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we
live on and where we like to define positions.
(The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)
TH
So you are talking about celestial navigation.
I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.
You didn't get the point?
When you use a clock to find the longitude of your
position, it is because you must have measured the direction
to the Sun (or Moon or a star). Determining your position
this way is geometry! Euclidean geometry!
Celestial navigation as we know it would be impossible
without Euclidean geometry.
Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than Euclidean.See Volney's comment.
You seem to think that a Cartesian coordinate system must be used
in Euclidean geometry. That is nonsense. Spherical coordinates
are used in celestial navigation. The geometry is still Euclidean.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved
and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich
nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of aLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
any of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts
Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved
and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich
nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of aLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
any of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be
rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people
nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of aLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
accepts any of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
Explain how any of it is right!Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved
and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich
nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of aLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
any of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
Paul? Can you measure the difference between absolute and relative motion? At a motion black hole the atom competes with light. If light is absolute motion
and the atom can compete how is the atom not having a form of absolute motion of
its own?
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be
rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people
fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutinyLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-
accepts any of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
Explain how any of it is right!
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be
people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes
fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutinyLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-
accepts any of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every time youYet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
Explain how any of it is right!That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can
people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes
fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutinyLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-
accepts any of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
theory is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and everyYet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
Explain how any of it is right!That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new
You have a child-like faith in the system.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
On 11/26/2023 3:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.Unfortunately for you, relativity is supported by many experiments, so
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be
rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people
nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of aLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
accepts any of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because thoseOn Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can
people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes
fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutinyLaurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
"Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-
he accepts any of it at all.In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is
theory is wrong.Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
Explain how any of it is right!That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 13:24:03 |
Calls: | 7,754 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 12,894 |
Messages: | 5,744,193 |