Eotvos, not Newton

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:03:37 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 11:48:01 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Conceptually, I can
make a device that transfers material between the glasses one atom at
a time.

That's bull****. I'll bet you ten bucks you can't.

Conceptually, I already did. You lose.

Bull****lingly, you did nothing of the sort. Show me the proof.

Such a device (which is an engineering challenge, but which
certainly violates no physical laws) can create two glasses which have
exactly the same volume of water.

Not a chance. Yer grasping at straws.

Experiments like this are done all the time in labs. Traps are
populated with a fixed count of atoms.

Lies. You are a liar and a fool.

You are confusing measurement error and poor experiment design with
something fundamental about numbers.

I'm not the one who's confused. But you have a point. All
measurement is relative.

That's not my point. And not all measurement is relative.

It certainly is. What's the dimensions of a two-by-four?

If you're
measuring volume, that's absolute.

How much is a barrel?

There are a finite, countable
number of atoms (or marbles) in the container, and that number is
relative to nothing.

That's a laugh. Just try counting the atoms. After you're done
counting them, they will have changed.

Do the same experiment with
marbles and you'll understand nature better.

OK. I'll take a marble and crack it in half. I'll get the same
results.

In nature, there's no evidence that anything can be broken down
indefinitely. Time, space, energy... all have a smallest unit. At that
point, you're just counting, and count is absolute.

But are you talking about taking a bag of marbles and counting out
half of them? Not all the marbles are the same. Some will have
different weights and colors. You're still the fool here.

You don't understand the experiment.

I understand more than you do. You've proven to be a fool.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 09:03:16 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
It's not an experiment that teaches us anything. Conceptually, I can
make a device that transfers material between the glasses one atom
at
a time. Such a device (which is an engineering challenge, but which
certainly violates no physical laws) can create two glasses which
have
exactly the same volume of water.

Not if there was an odd number of water molecules in one glass when
you started... :-)

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 6:50:47 PM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 09:03:16 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
It's not an experiment that teaches us anything. Conceptually, I can
make a device that transfers material between the glasses one atom
at
a time. Such a device (which is an engineering challenge, but which
certainly violates no physical laws) can create two glasses which
have
exactly the same volume of water.

Not if there was an odd number of water molecules in one glass when
you started... :-)

Ah, you are all genuises !.

Try that with the Pi proportion where you dummies try to set a lower limit for length.

I would use a more complex arrangement using the geometric non periodicity of Penrose tiling but I doubt if any of you could handle the argument much less the solution -

http://www.scienceu.com/geometry/art...g/penrose.html

You all should retreat to your social/political commentaries where you are safe.

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:09:13 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

...All numbers are really variables.

Is PI a variable? Hmmm?

How about phi, the golden ratio? A variable?

How about 1? Is 1 a variable? It IS, after all, a number, and you say that ALL numbers are variable...

How about 'i', is that a variable?

Perhaps you should put your brain in gear at least a little bit before you let out the clutch...

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 12:09:01 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:09:13 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

...All numbers are really variables.

Is PI a variable? Hmmm?

Yes it is. I proved it in a paper. But my professor read it and said
that Einstein had proved it years ago. I guess that makes me as smart
as Einstein.

Think about it. Space is curved, especially around black holes. So
pi *must* be a variable.

How about phi, the golden ratio? A variable?

All of them.

How about 1? Is 1 a variable?

I just showed that it was.

It IS, after all, a number, and you say that ALL numbers are variable...

Hmm. Perhaps not zero.

How about 'i', is that a variable?

Easily proven. I wrote a paper that proves i is equal to 1/2.



This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 4:34:06 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 12:09:01 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:09:13 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

...All numbers are really variables.

Is PI a variable? Hmmm?

Yes it is. I proved it in a paper. But my professor read it and said
that Einstein had proved it years ago. I guess that makes me as smart
as Einstein.

Think about it. Space is curved, especially around black holes. So
pi *must* be a variable.

That is using a definition of "pi" not accepted by most mathematicians.

One has to be able to do mathematics in advance of worrying about the
properties of the physical space in which we live - thus, pi is not the local
circle ratio, it is the circle ratio for Euclidean, or "flat", space.

John Savard

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:34:06 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

How about 'i', is that a variable?

Easily proven. I wrote a paper that proves i is equal to 1/2.

This only indicates that you are completely full of crap.

Produce that paper, if you dare. Or, just reproduce your proof here, to show that the square-root of (-1) is equal to 1/2. This I gotta see... but I won't...

Put up or shut up.

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
Think about it. Space is curved, especially around black holes.
So
pi *must* be a variable.

That is using a definition of "pi" not accepted by most
mathematicians.

Since this is sci.astro.amateur, not sci.mathematics, one can note
that astronomers commonly use pi as symbol för stellar parallax. That
astronomical pi is indeed a variable.

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:39:41 AM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
Think about it. Space is curved, especially around black holes.
So
pi *must* be a variable.

That is using a definition of "pi" not accepted by most
mathematicians.

Since this is sci.astro.amateur, not sci.mathematics, one can note
that astronomers commonly use pi as symbol för stellar parallax. That
astronomical pi is indeed a variable.

Like all the other inviolate proportions , empiricists can't help themselves as Pi is not just a arithmetic , it is inviolate the relationship between line and circle.

The empirical cult is basically an assault on common sense whether it is their mindnumbing 'spinning moon', the 366 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit ,their ideas about retrogrades and the many other assertions they make and pass them through the education system as facts.

It is anti-intelligence - the flagrant disregard for all that is good in human nature that buries insights rather than elevates them.

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:39:41 AM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
Think about it. Space is curved, especially around black holes.
So
pi *must* be a variable.

That is using a definition of "pi" not accepted by most
mathematicians.

Since this is sci.astro.amateur, not sci.mathematics, one can note
that astronomers commonly use pi as symbol för stellar parallax. That
astronomical pi is indeed a variable.

Like all the other inviolate proportions , empiricists can't help themselves as Pi is not just arithmetic , it is the inviolate relationship between line and circle expressed as an unalterable value

The empirical cult is basically an assault on common sense whether it is their mindnumbing 'spinning moon', the 366 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit ,their ideas about retrogrades and the many other assertions they make and pass them off through the education system as 'facts'.

It is anti-intelligence - the flagrant disregard for all that is good in human nature by attempting to bury insights rather than elevate all the fundamental facts.