|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1331
|
|||
|
|||
I await Sam Wormley's better solution.
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. |
#1332
|
|||
|
|||
Sam Wormley averages 19 posts per day, yet he's the 35th mos****ched.
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. * 3. *5 ▼ 8 ▲30 From where you got this figure. Bye Sanny Enjoy & Chat: http://www.GetClub.com |
#1333
|
|||
|
|||
I await Sam Wormley's better solution.
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. |
#1334
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
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 |
#1335
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
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. |
#1336
|
|||
|
|||
I await Sam Wormley's better solution.
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. [...] |
#1337
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
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. [...] |
#1338
|
|||
|
|||
I await Sam Wormley's better solution.
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? |
#1339
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
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. |
#1340
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finite Relativism: Review Request | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 519 | September 25th 12 12:26 AM |
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 09 09:54 AM |
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 26th 09 09:00 PM |
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | January 1st 09 03:20 PM |
BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 13th 08 01:05 PM |