How many degrees in their orbit do the planets travel in one Earth year?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:29 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Besides, you didn't answer the question. How do you think Q came into
being?

Rather the same way as Harry Potter, I would guess.

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 3:24:00 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:07:06 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

You call that a logical response? As mentioned before, the square
root of -1 is DEFINED as being i, and the entire mathematical
community knows and understands this.

Then you admit that root -1 doesn't exist.

No; he admits that no positive or negative number is the square root of -1,
and, therefore, a new symbol has to be defined for it, which allows an
extension of the real numbers to be created - the complex numbers.

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:24:00 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:07:06 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

How about if I say the square root of -1 doesn't exist?

Gottcha again! This is too easy.

You call that a logical response? As mentioned before, the square
root of -1 is DEFINED as being i, and the entire mathematical
community knows and understands this.

Then you admit that root -1 doesn't exist.

Not at all. You are evading the whole question. You stated, unequivocally, that i = 1/2/. I called your bluff and challenged you to show your proof. You than stated that you were unable to do this on this forum, for some unknown reason. Now you are trying to bluff your way out of the mess you have created for yourself by denying the very existence of i itself, simply because it is an imaginary number. I doubt very much that you have a degree in mathematics, and that you are nothing but a common bull****ter. You undoubtedly live in a shack somewhere in Detroit and are using the computer in the local library to communicate on this forum.

Prove me wrong!

This is way too easy...

On 16/09/2015 22:23, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:07:06 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

How about if I say the square root of -1 doesn't exist?

Gottcha again! This is too easy.

You call that a logical response? As mentioned before, the square
root of -1 is DEFINED as being i, and the entire mathematical
community knows and understands this.

You are arguing here with a clueless ****wit. Another Oriel
(but with a different bizarre fixation)

Then you admit that root -1 doesn't exist.

Nth roots of -1 form the basis of all modern digital signal processing.
You are without doubt the dumbest troll here for a very long time.

If you majored in anything at this "university" you claim to have been
to it must have been "Ignorance and Stupidity".

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:22:49 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
What properties to any deities have that allow us to develop any
reasonable tests?

The ability to work miracles, i.e. to violate the natural laws.

And how do you test for that?

Have the deity take James Randi's challenge.

At best, you can make an observation if
and when it happens (and as we all know, the Abrahamic god stopped
performing public miracles over 1000 years ago).

Of course this requires the cooperation of the deity. If an
omnipotent deity decides to not cooperate, we cannot do much about
it. On the other hand, this brings a disadvantage to a deity vain
enough to want humans to believe in it: a growing number of people
will then decide that the deity does not exist.

The situation is similar when observing the universe. We cannot
experiment with the universe, instead we must wait until some
astronomical phenomenon occurs and then observe it. Fortunately,
astronomical phenomena didn't cease more than 1000 years ago... :-)

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:39:51 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:
This universe was created
in an orderly manner.

Define "create" in your context.

Create. To cause to exist.

How is that cause created?

And where was that cause situated before the creation of the universe
( = everything that is, everything that was, everything that will be
) ?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:17:14 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 11:05:59 AM UTC-7, Paul
Schlyter wrote:

There are four different 4th roots of -1, above are two of them.
Which are the other two?

+-e^(i*pi)^(1/4)... I think I'm representing this correctly...

The expression is incorrect, it should have been:

(e^(i*pi)) ^(1/4)

As you wrote it, it becomes e^((i*pi)^(1/4)) which is incorrect. Yes,
the power operator shall be evaluated from the right if parentheses
do not dictate another order of evaluation.

And even if written in the correct form it's not an answer but merely
a restatement of the problem: of course the 4th roots of -1 equals
the 4th roots of -1, we already knew that, didn't we?

The answer looks like this: all four 4th roots of -1 can be written
as:

+-(1+-i)/sqrt(2)

Note that there's a +- at two places in that expression. When
combined, four different answers are produced.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:23:59 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:07:06 -0700 (PDT), palsing

wrote this crap:


On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath
wrote:

How about if I say the square root of -1 doesn't exist?

Gottcha again! This is too easy.

You call that a logical response? As mentioned before, the square
root of -1 is DEFINED as being i, and the entire mathematical
community knows and understands this.

Then you admit that root -1 doesn't exist.

In the same way as negative numbers do not exist. In elementary
school the pupils are taught that "if a bowl contains 2 apples, you
cannot take 5 apples from it".

If there are no negative numbers, some subtractions cannot be
computed, such as 2 - 5, because the result is not a non-negative
number. When negative numbers are included, all numbers can be
subtracted from one another, including negative numbers.

If there are no imaginary numbers, some square roots cannot be
computed, such at the square root of negative numbers, because the
result is not a real number. When imaginary and complex numbers are
introduced, you can compute the the square root of any number,
including imaginary and complex numbers. You can compute cube, 4th,
5th and other roots of any number too. You can do a lot of other
interesting things too which you cannot do in the realm of real-only
numbers. Such as taking the logarithm of negative numbers, or the
arcsine of real numbers larger than +1 or smaller than -1.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:26:41 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:
It is also the 4th root of -1...

There are four different 4th roots of -1, above are two of them.
Which are the other two?

Just more imaginary numbers.

No, the results are not imaginary numbers, they are complex numbers.
Yes, there is a difference.

Anyway, the square root of i can easily be computed, as you seen to
have understood now.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:29:03 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:
Why don't you try calculating the square root of i?

That is 1/2 of the square root of 2 plus i times 1/2 of the square
root of 2.

Then which is it?

He just told you, dummy.

"What is 1+1?"
"It is 2."
"Then which is it? "