Re: scale-free complexity may be wrong: CUNY
From: Daryl McCullough (stevendaryl3016_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/07/05
- Next message: RP: "Re: An interesting SR puzzle"
- Previous message: Mitch Perkins: "Re: Escaping Detection, the Soft Way."
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: scale-free complexity may be wrong: CUNY"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: scale-free complexity may be wrong: CUNY"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: scale-free complexity may be wrong: CUNY"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 7 Feb 2005 15:21:29 -0800
Androcles says...
>"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote
>> You talk about foolish arrogance, and then you claim to understood
>> physics better than people who win Nobel prizes in physics.
>
>It wasn't a Nobel prize in mathematics, now was it?
There is no Nobel prize in mathematics. However, some of the best
mathematicians in the 20th century worked on the mathematics of
relativity, including Minkowsky, Russell, Whitehead, Poincare,
Hilbert. No mathematician would support your loony claims about
Einstein.
You are no more competent in mathematics than you are in physics.
As a matter of fact, your problems in physics follow from your
lack of understanding of basic mathematics.
-- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
- Next message: RP: "Re: An interesting SR puzzle"
- Previous message: Mitch Perkins: "Re: Escaping Detection, the Soft Way."
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: scale-free complexity may be wrong: CUNY"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: scale-free complexity may be wrong: CUNY"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: scale-free complexity may be wrong: CUNY"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
