Finite Relativism (FR) book

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

[...]

'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I
should
contribute a review.

Well I just removed it, so please remove the comment.

Sam is under no obligation to remove his review.

eric gisse wrote:

Sam is under no obligation to remove his review.

Let Sam talk for himself.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
The latest version of the book has many textual corrections, but the
core mathematics remain the same:

....brought to you from the guy who thinks that squares
don't have diagonals, and can't determine the distance
between points.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
dlzc wrote:

You lie. Your lies are on record. Says a lot about how stupid you
think the rest of humanity is.

It is unfortunate Doug used an alias because I do acknowledge him.

Any further posts by you will be reported by me as spam. You are
selling product, in violation of the charter.

Science contributions aren't illegal.

You're not contributing, you're selling.

Greg Neill wrote:

...brought to you from the guy who thinks that squares
don't have diagonals, and can't determine the distance
between points.

If you still think:

1) Having rational numbers as an input and getting converted into
irrational numbers is okay as far as a physical theory is concerned;

2) Then you seem having forgotten about the initial disproof you
silently dismissed and never answered in fact:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...annonballs.pdf

3) Did I mention an infinite amount of Universes created on the fly for
every instant doesn't make any sense?

Greg Neill wrote:

You're not contributing, you're selling.

I have contributed:
- A paper
- A simulator approximating predictions
- 3 GR disproofs

On Dec 15, 1:46*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:

wrong.

idiot

Rational numbers - GR - Irrational numbers

Oh good heavens
Rational numbers - Classical Newtonian physics - Irrational numbers -
no problem - get over it.


Retarded.

[...]

On Dec 15, 3:29*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

You're not contributing, you're selling.

I have contributed:
- A paper
- A simulator approximating predictions
- 3 GR disproofs

What GR disproofs?

On Dec 15, 1:57*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
eric gisse wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote:

Phil, the thing that's so great about you is that you are stupid enough to
take simple terminology literally. A normal student just sees 'irrational
numbers' or 'imaginary numbers' and understands them to be a name, but you
are special. You think they are _actually_ imaginary of _actually_
irrational.

An irrational number will never be the right answer.

The circumference of a circle that has diameter 1 is not really pi?
That isn't the right answer for that circumference?

On Dec 15, 2:30*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

* Hey Phil--What institute is it you claim to have a mathematics
* degree from?
* *http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html

"Irrational numbers have decimal expansions that neither terminate nor
become periodic."

And this is a problem why?


Sam, I removed your name as requested so please remove your comment on
Amazon:http://amzn.com/1441453105