Re: transformation equations



Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:


doug wrote:


Spaceman wrote:



doug wrote:



Spaceman wrote:




doug wrote:




Since you plan on defining your own system of math unrelating to
any used by scientists or mathematicians anywhere, you have
quite a task in front of you since you cannot use algebra or any
calculus, assuming you even try.

You cannot be this stupid.


I am not stupid at all.
I am using logic and the logic proves that no "real" negatives
exist.

You are using your "logic" which is unrelated to any reason
the educated people use.


Apparently you call yourself educated and you can magically
multiply a negative to make things positive.





You think you can redefine math to
suit your prejudices with any justification. Logic is just
fine without you as is math and physics.


I am not redefining math,

Changing the definitions is considered redefining.


What "definition" am I changing?

Since math defines the products of two negative numbers
as positive, you are redefining basic math.


It has no definite proof of such so therefore the
definition is merely a "postulate" still
and in fact the logic of such falls the opposite way
as I have shown but you can not grasp such logic.



Apparently you love to make up such crap.
I am simply adhering the the "logic" of math and ignoring
the "imaginary" illogical bull*** of theory.

No, you are ignoring the basic math.


No,
You are ignoring the logics of math.
I am adhering to the basics and the basics are the logic.


i = imaginary.
I see you have no clue about the imaginary square roots
of negative numbers.
:)

And you base that comment on?


That you prove you would rather use imaginary bull***
instead of logic.


The problem is what you are thinking about has nothing to do
with math or science.


You are just full of problems that do not exist to suppport
your lack of logic in math, and complete lack of science.
Anything you can not grasp is a problem, sadly the problem
is only for you and your religion based science.
:)

The thing that is nice to know is that in ten years, I will
still be right and you will still be wrong. You can quit now
and find a new windmill or you can continue to refuse to acknowledge
your mistakes. Even noeinstein moves to another area of ignorance
to demonstrate his depth of misunderstanding after he gets shown
to be completely wrong on one particular aspect of science.
Or, you could emulate not-Dr-not-Henri-not-Wilson who just refuses
to acknowledge experiments that show him wrong and just accuses
all scientists of lying because he feels that they are wrong without
evidence of that.





.

Quantcast