Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
From: John (JohnASiegel_at_worlodnet.att.net)
Date: 10/17/04
- Next message: Oppie: "Re: Understanding the technicality"
- Previous message: Marcel Martin: "Re: Understanding the technicality"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:49:50 GMT
George Hammond wrote:
> "Goran Dhemmeog" <hcraeser731@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b9eccd47.0410160655.620d33eb@posting.google.com...
>
>>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:<ZtidnT3b0OTWae3cRVn-2g@comcast.com>...
>
>>>"Goran Dhemmeog" <hcraeser731@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:b9eccd47.0410152237.69abde3b@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:<m9mdnbBRWvBAwe3cRVn-sw@comcast.com>...
>>>
>>>>>"Goran Dhemmeog" <hcraeser731@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:b9eccd47.0410151108.44580605@posting.google.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>>message news:<rfadne-9F60MFPLcRVn-gw@comcast.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>>You don't have to know where any equations come from, and you
>>>>>don't have to understand any math.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, sorry, I thought that you were going to discuss mathematics. My
>>>>mistake.
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>No there's no mistake. The mathematics was presented to you
>>>and you said
>>>
>>> "I DON'T UNDERTAND WHERE IT COMES FROM"
>>> (Goran Dhemmeog)
>>>
>>>So if you're going to ADMIT that you're too IGNORANT
>>>TO UNDERSTAND MATH.... then I was going to try and explain
>>>it to you without math.
>>
>>No. I admit that my memory and abilities in mathematics are limited. I
>>am not an encyclopedia of formulas. You simply give a formula. Let's
>>say like
>>
>> (2n)!
>>C_n = -------- ,
>> (n + 1)!n!
>>
>>which is the number of ways a regular n-gon can be divided into n-2
>>triangles, and expect that I instantly "get it" where this comes from,
>>and when I don't you call me stupid. You must, must, must be more
>>rigorous and explain every formula and expression that you introduce.
>>You cannot simply smack something. All mathematical proofs must follow
>>a strict sequence. If this was a paper submitted for me to review, it
>>would have bounced back after me reading the first lines.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Your problem is you can't understand SIMPLE THINGS and keep
> instisting everything must be COMPLICATED.
> For cripes sake, the n distances between n points is obviously a
> simple (n x n) matrix, having n^2 entries. But the diagonal is 0 so there
> are
> n^2-n, but the thing is symmetric, so you have to divide by 2, hence you
> get:
>
> (n^2-n)/2 = n(n-1)/2 distances between n points.
>
> You don't have to start talking about "polygons".
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>How about the points inside the cube? Or the sides?
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>What about them? When EUCLID SAYS:
>>>
>>> "3 points determine a triangle"
>>>
>>>does anybody say "what about the points inside
>>>the triangle"...... "what about the sides".... "what
>>>about the color of it"...... "what about the moonlight".....
>>>no because it's IRRELEVANT to EUCLID'S
>>>statement.
>>> and your statement "what about the points in side
>>>the cube" is IRRELEVANT to the statement that
>>>8 points and the 28 distances between them define
>>>a cube.
>>>
>>>EITHER ADDRESS THE MATH THAT PROVES
>>>YOU WRONG, OR RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT.
>>>AND ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN BEATEN AT
>>>YOUR OWN GAME.
>>>
>>>"THE EUCLIDEAN METRIC CAUSES CUBES TO EXIST".
>>
>>You have not provided a proof for me to refute. All there is is some
>>trivial explanation of what some sets of points look like with the
>>euclidean metric, and a conclusion (non sequitur) in capital letters.
>>I must ask again: do you know what a mathematical proof looks like? Do
>>you know anything about logic?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> LIAR.
> Einstein himself presents the SIMPLE AND ELEMENTARY proof
> of the fact that if you have a simple object composed of n points
> connected by n(n-1)/2 straight lines (a cube for instance) in
> ANY METRICAL space, you CANNOT arbitrally specify all
> n(n-1)/2 distances... but in fact can only SPECIFY 3n-6 of the
> distances, because the METRIC will determine the remaining
> n(n-1)/2 - (3n - 6) of the distances (by triangulation).
> THEREFORE, it is proven that it is the METRIC which
> determines the SHAPE (configuration) of an object.
>
> SO THERE IS THE PROOF THAT THE "EUCLIDEAN METRIC
> CAUSES CUBES TO EXIST".
>
> NOW YOU CAN EITHER REFUTE EINSTEIN'S PROOF,
> OR YOU CAN RETRACT YOUR STAEMENT THAT
> HAMMOND IS WRONG.
> ONE OR THE OTHER!
>
>
>
>>Please let Einstein rest in peace. He does not contribute to this
>>discussion. Or does he explicitly say that the metric causes objects?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> LIAR.
> He clearly states the CAUSAL EFFECT of the metric
> on the configuration (shape) of the n points defining a simple
> object on page 8 of his book _The Meaning of Relativity_
> where he says:
>
> ------------------Einstein quote ibid page
> 8---------------------------------
> "That Euclidean geometry (the Euclidean Metric)... affirms something
> more than mere deductions derived from definitions may be seen
> from the following simple consideration: There are n(n-1)/2 distances
> between n points in space.... the metric furnishes n(n-1)/2 equations
> for these distances in terms of the 3n coordinates of the points. But
> the 3n coordinates may be elimintated from these equations leaving
> at least n(n-1)/2 - 3n * equations between the distances themselves.
> Since these distances are real measurable quantities and by definition
> are independent of each other, these relations between the distances
> are NOT NECCESSARY A PRIORI."
>
> * In reality there are n(n-1)/2 - 3n + 6 equations
>
> ---------------------- end
> quote----------------------------------------------------
>
> Here EINSTEIN is clearly TELLING YOU that the impostion of a
> METRIC on a space PHYSICALLY AFFECTS (DETERMINES)
> the CONFIGURATION that may be assumed by any N points.
> The CONFIGURATION (shapes) ARE DETERMINED BY THE
> METRIC.
>
> so clearly you are an impudent LIAR... Einstein certainly is
> involved in this argument... and in fact he has given the PROOF
> that you are WRONG.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>A metric is a binary function d(x,y) such that:
>>
>>1) It is positive: for all x and y d(x,y) >= 0.
>>2) It is symmetric: for all x and y d(x,y) = d(y,x).
>>3) It satisfies the triangle inequality: for all x, y and z
>>d(x,y)+d(y,z)>=d(x,z).
>>
>>How does a function cause something?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> It is the "TRIANGLE INEQUALITY" that you just mentioned
> that causes the METRIC to "shape objects".
>
> What it causes is the fact that if you have n points in
> a space of N dimensions, and if n is sufficiently larger
> than N, then while you can "arbitrally" specify some of
> the d(x,y)'s, you CAN'T arbitrally specify ALL of them,
> because some of them:
>
> "are fixed by triangulation using the metric"
>
> This means in effect, that the METRIC is what ultimately
> determines the "SHAPE OF THE OBJECT".
>
> Obviously, for the same limited number of arbitrarally given
> inital distances, choosing a different metric will CHANGE THE
> NUMERICAL VALUE of the remaing distances and thereby
> change the SHAPE of the object.... hence... different metrics
> will form different shapes for the same numerical input data.
>
> Christ.... I hope you can understand that!!
>
>
>
>>>[Hammond]
>>><Snip a very looong rant>
>>
>>You cannot simply understand the concept of a metric.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> CLEARLY, it is YOU who does not understand the concept
> of a metric... as I have demonstrated above.
>
>
>
>>I really cannot
>>argue anything about that.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> You got that one right!
>
>
>
>>Call me stupid and incompetent,
>
>
> [Hammond]
> OK... you're stupid and idncompetent.
>
>
>>but I can
>>only say that you do not understand mathematics.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> NO... I'v just PROVEN that YOU do not understand mathematics.
>
>
>>There is nothing to
>>argue about.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> You got that one right... both Einstein and Hammond agree
> that you are WRONG. End of argument.
>
>
>>Your statement is a tautology: "a cube is a cube because
>>a cube is a cube", the metric has nothing to do with this.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> LIAR. You don't know what you are taling about, and you
> know it, and you still keep on lying. Not only are you stupid,
> you are a fraud also.
>
>
>
>>You have
>>not established a causal relation between the metric and the shape of
>>objects.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG. It is the "triangle inequality" which you admit exists
> above, which forms the basis of this "causal relation".
> You are WRONG by your OWN ADMISSION!
>
>
>>(Hint: there is none).
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Hint.... you are talking to someone who knows more
> physics and math than you do.
>
>
>
>>This is like claiming that we cause
>>the moon! Because we call it "moon" therefore we are the cause of
>>moon.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> It already appears that you can't understand
> "simple triangulation" much less the
> "causes of the Moon".
>
> I demand that you either refute Einstein's proof that it
> is "metrical triangulation" that causes the "shape of objects",
> or RETRACT your objection to Hammond's statement
> that "the Euclidean Metric causes cubes to exist".
>
> REFUTE or RETRACT!
>
>
ALl you have said is that the meaning of a point's coordinates depends
on the coordinate system being used - that says nothing about the shape.
By your "reasoning" there could be no such thing, for example, as a cone.
John
- Next message: Oppie: "Re: Understanding the technicality"
- Previous message: Marcel Martin: "Re: Understanding the technicality"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
