Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

lid wrote:

What, pray tell, makes Sam Wormley think Phil Bouchard is
“ deficient in modern numerical algorithms � ?

Is there something wrong with this ? :
http://jodarom.sdf1.org/code/arith/isqrt_ia32_joda.c
I await Sam Wormley's better solution.


Doug and Sam cannot answer the absolute of the inverse square law
integral. They simply switched to straight lies now.

This is pretty funny. Phil could not do the inside the sphere
calculation and so looked pretty stupid. He was too lazy to
even look in a textbook where it was worked out. He finally
gave up and ran away from the problem.

Right now, in Sci.Physics, last 12 days, considering no more than
the 30 most-recent posts per “ nym � ( i.e. person ), Phil Bouchard
has the highest “ xRank � ( i.e. he's the “ most watched � ).

How do you calculate xRank. Is it number of views your post get? How
to know how many times your posr was seen?

xRank is like Google's pageRank, where each nym is a “ usenetPage �.
The higher a nym's xRank, the more likely you'll be replying to him.
Advertizers would ( and do ) pay good money to bump up their pageRanks.


Â* 3. Â*5 â–¼ 8 â–²30

From where you got this figure.

Bye
Sanny

Enjoy & Chat: http://www.GetClub.com

doug wrote:

This is pretty funny. Phil could not do the inside the sphere
calculation and so looked pretty stupid. He was too lazy to
even look in a textbook where it was worked out. He finally
gave up and ran away from the problem.

I do have the inside the sphere formula for FR and the solution is very
neat. But that has nothing to do with the question I asked you. But
since there's a bottleneck in the chain of production the demonstration
cannot go beyond Doug's blunders.

doug wrote:

No, it tries to cover up for your wrong theory. Having a fudge
factor which is different for every point in space means you
are wrong.

Well no it means Doug silently push away anything related to computers.
A virtual universe is more useful and precise than watching Michio
Kaku's movies and wondering about wormholes.

[...]

Phil knows no science or math so he tries the cowardly way out and
spouts random, generally made up, quotes.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." --
Albert Einstein

doug wrote:

So you think that lying about relativity constitutes a disproof? You
really were asleep in all your classes.

Now that everybody knows how the cannonballs experiment is easy to
understand, Doug's students can all happily go back to sleep.

You cannot be this stupid and still be able to type.

Doug confuses my typing with nature being defined by square roots.

doug wrote:

Wrong but neat huh. You do not know how to do it so whatever you
have is silly.

My second method for the inverse square law integral is required because
it simplifies the equation, which is in turn used for a more complex
calculation and resulting in a very simple solution.

[...]

doug wrote:

[...]

A virtual universe is more useful and precise than watching Michio
Kaku's movies and wondering about wormholes.

What is this supposed to mean? Your dreams are more fun than reality?

This is exactly what I was saying. You do not see anything useful in
computers, or mathematics for that matter.

[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


This is pretty funny. Phil could not do the inside the sphere
calculation and so looked pretty stupid. He was too lazy to
even look in a textbook where it was worked out. He finally
gave up and ran away from the problem.


I do have the inside the sphere formula for FR and the solution is very
neat.

Wrong but neat huh. You do not know how to do it so whatever you
have is silly.

But that has nothing to do with the question I asked you. But
since there's a bottleneck in the chain of production the demonstration
cannot go beyond Doug's blunders.

Well, phil since you cannot write a coherent sentence, it is clear
you will never go anywhere in science. Was this sentence supposed to
mean something to you?

Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:


No, it tries to cover up for your wrong theory. Having a fudge
factor which is different for every point in space means you
are wrong.


Well no it means Doug silently push away anything related to computers.

That is very bizarre statement with nothing to back it up.


A virtual universe is more useful and precise than watching Michio
Kaku's movies and wondering about wormholes.

What is this supposed to mean? Your dreams are more fun than reality?

[...]

Phil knows no science or math so he tries the cowardly way out and
spouts random, generally made up, quotes.


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." --
Albert Einstein

My point is made by phil. He has no science to contribute so he
is resorting to a random phrase generator.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


So you think that lying about relativity constitutes a disproof? You
really were asleep in all your classes.


Now that everybody knows how the cannonballs experiment is easy to
understand, Doug's students can all happily go back to sleep.

This is pretty stupid. Phil wants to disprove relativity so phil
makes up "phil relativity" and shows that "phil relativity" is
wrong. We knew that. But, where phil goes badly astray is that
he wants to claim that, since phil relativity is wrong, then
Einstein relativity is wrong. Phil and his cannonballs have nothing
to do with Einstein relativity so all they do is prove phil
relativity is wrong. But that is useless. Phil then goes on
to prove FR wrong.

You cannot be this stupid and still be able to type.


Doug confuses my typing with nature being defined by square roots.

No, you confuse your delusions with reality.