Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: Goran Dhemmeog (hcraeser731_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:17:48 +0000 (UTC)

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message news:<HJSdndHGROUwW-zcRVn-iQ@comcast.com>...
> "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.
> ...
> You don't have to start talking about "polygons".

On the contrary. I insist that everything must be explained. The
polygon example is only an example of your kind of argumentation: you
bring forth an expression, without explaining where it comes from or
how it relates the discussion before it. You even rarely manage to
establish how the newly introduce expression relates to what you are
going to say next. Even if you are correct you must provide more
information than simply the result.

> 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.
>

I have not disputed this.

> > 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.

But Einstein does not use the word "cause" does he? Read my reply to
Alan.

> > 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".

So you have another definition for "cause". That seems to be the
problem.

> 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".

The metric determines how the object looks like in that metric.

> 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.

Changing the metric changes the measures, not the object. Please
explain in detail what do you mean by "causing". Do not just say that
it is obvious and I am stupid. Explain this to me thoroughly as I am
so stupid and incompetent. Many things in physics and mathematics
appear to be simple and everyone assume them but still actual rigorous
proof is very difficult. Take for example the Fubini's Theorem
(http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/~igc/tch/ma2001/notes/node76.html), which
says that the order of multiple intergrals can be changed. All
physicist take it for granted, but in fact it is very complicated to
prove.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... George Hammond wrote: ... I admit that my memory and abilities in mathematics are limited. ... > distances, because the METRIC will determine the remaining ... >>Please let Einstein rest in peace. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... George Hammond wrote: ... I admit that my memory and abilities in mathematics are limited. ... > distances, because the METRIC will determine the remaining ... >>Please let Einstein rest in peace. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... >> Einstein himself presents the SIMPLE AND ELEMENTARY proof ... >> HAMMOND IS WRONG. ... >> Since these distances are real measurable quantities and by definition ... mathematics and physics can see that you HAVE LOST ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Good Question for the Relativist Rabble.
    ... were decreasing by the Lorentz contraction, whereas Einstein ... What value would Einstein use for v when determining gamma? ... and his fuckwit disciples call it gamma. ... A relativist would say the distances were decreasing by the Lorentz ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... >> only say that you do not understand mathematics. ... > the internal diagonals are NOT equal to sqrt3, but you COULD describe, ... on the configuration of the n points defining a simple ... Since these distances are real measurable quantities and by definition ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast