Re: Relativity and delusion


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:p396m5-nfv.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:03:03 +0100
| <w_Xjk.275$su.120@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:0hkrl5-qat.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:24:27 +0100
| > | <WF4ik.41847$Q73.20550@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | >
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message
| > | > news:vbvml5-7q2.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
| > | > | <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | wrote
| > | > | on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:44:34 -0400
| > | > | <F86dnUN61vMbIhXVnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
| > | > | >> In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
| > | > | >> <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | >> wrote
| > | > | >> on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:06:41 -0400
| > | > | >> <fd2dncxb0pr3ABrVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | >>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > | > | >>>> No, I don't think so either - there will always be a steady
fresh
| > | > | >>>> supply of retiring engineers and highshool dropouts who
learned
| > | > | >>>> to handle a square root.
| > | > | >>>> But don't loose too much sleep over it - if you can't stop
it,
| > try
| > | > | >>>> to enjoy it :-)
| > | > | >>>
| > | > | >>> Dirk,
| > | > | >>> What is the square root of -1?
| > | > | >>> How about -4?
| > | > | >>> Negative numbers can't have square roots huh?
| > | > | >>> :)
| > | > | >>>
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> Not real square roots. The consideration of the solution
| > | > | >> of the equation x^2 + 1 = 0 led to an entire new class of
| > | > | >> numbers, namely imaginary and complex numbers.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > ???
| > | > | > x^2 + 1 does not equal 0.
| > | > |
| > | > | The intent of the problem is to find the value(s) of x
| > | > | such that the equation is satisfied.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > (0, i) and (0,-i), there being two roots.
| > |
| > | Both of them being imaginary and therefore improper.
| > |
| > | >
| > | > -i * -i = (-1)*i * (-1)*i = 1 * i^2
| > | > i^2 = -1 by definition. Does Spaceman understand "definition"?
| > |
| > | No, but that's never stopped him before.
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > Who the hell ever has sadi that it does?
| > | > | > Wow.. no wonder you guys are all screwed up.
| > | > | > If you are trying to make it equal 0 of course you
| > | > | > are going to have to make up "imaginary numbers"
| > | > |
| > | > | And that's exactly what happened.
| > | >
| > | > http://people.bath.ac.uk/acpw20/Complexhistory.html
| > | >
| > |
| > | Not bad for a capsule history, though there's a couple of bad images
in
| > | there.
| > |
| >
| >
| >
| > The underlying belief here is what Spaceman was taught as a
| > child is real, any advance on that is imaginary. His parents gave
| > him a real name, he gives himself a fake name. Many confuse
| > the real person with the symbol representing the person. It
| > gets worse when they confuse the concept of unity, of "oneness"
| > with the symbol "1". sqrt(-1) is a concept whose symbol or name
| > is i.
| >
| > One could even allow your gamma, another symbol representing
| > a concept, save that it was not correctly derived and leads to
| > inconsistencies, but that's never stopped you before.
| >
|
| The gamma is just as imaginary as i. It just happens to work.

Work on what? Nothing physical, that's for sure. You need to rename
this newsgroup as hopes.dreams.relativity, this is no science or
physics to it than an engineer could use, just some piss-poor symbol
shuffling. YOU could not even program a spread*** and get gamma
to "work".
Go on, write the twin paradox up on a spread***.





.

Quantcast