Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time.

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 01/02/05 

Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 08:44:30 GMT

"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:SuKBd.603214$wV.181817@attbi_s54...
> > > > > > > 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.
>
>
>
> And I'm asking you why ?

Because it does not change the fact that a time measurement comes down to a
standard second which in no way is affected by your mental contortions.

>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> And I'm asking you why ?

Why you spew forth such rubbish? - probably the same reason cranks always
do - they are cranks and that is what cranks do.

>
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> And I'm asking you why ?

Why do you indulge in mental masturbation? I hypothesize it is an extreme
case of Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's
Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments -
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Bill

>
> -WK-
>
>
> > Bill
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > Uncle Al
> > > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> > > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages