Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time.
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 01/02/05
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:16:29 GMT
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:DkIBd.58261$k25.49443@attbi_s53...
>
> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:41D71AA9.2AA0BBF8@hate.spam.net...
> > Lefty wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:TVuBd.98715$K7.77697@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > >
> > > > "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
> > > news:%%rBd.2136$3m6.2075@attbi_s51...
> > > > > An example of division by zero in nature.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Thanks Bill, and I've got plenty of applications for this up my
sleeve.
> > [snip]
> >
> > An empirical differentiation between mere unfortunate ignorance and
> > full-blown metastatic stupidity.
>
> What was that thing they used to say on TV -
>
> Is that your _final_ answer ?
>
>
> > > This is just the first installment of something
> > > which is really much, much larger.
> >
> > No doubt.
>
> We need to build things piece by piece. I'm giving you something fairly
> straightforward to attack, it is just one simple operation, a single
> instance of division.
>
> Either it makes sense, or it's an attempt to square the circle.
It is mental masturbation pure and simple. You idea of constructing a clock
out of the entire universe, a solar system or whatever rubbish you are
proposing in no way changes the definition of a second which is what is use
in experiments so has zero observation consequences.
> I'm giving
> you every opportunity, and I would in fact invite you to disprove it, if
you
> can show me the error I'll tell you what, I'll put $20 on your PayPal
acct.
> Please - save me the trouble of worrying about this stuff. Prove me wrong.
> All I said was that time decomposes, and basically proved it, $20 says I'm
> right. I think that Thomas Jefferson is going to agree with me.
And who will be the judge - why you of course. I have seen crank spew long
enough to know all its tricks.
>
> I am not saying that Einstein, Pauli and Schrodinger were wrong. All I'm
> saying, is that neither were Larry Moe and Curley.
You are indulging in mental masturbation that has zero observational
consequences and trying to palm it off as insight.
Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Uncle Al
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
>
>
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
