Discussion:
About the relativistic doggies doctoring the "evidence" against basic math
(too old to reply)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-24 14:32:05 UTC
Permalink
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf

1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.

Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Python
2024-09-24 14:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false (quite the
opposite actually). You'll never get it. Face it
Maciej.

Find another hobby.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-24 15:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false
Is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true,
poor stinker?


(quite the
Post by Python
opposite actually). You'll never get it. Face it
Maciej.
Find another hobby.
No.
Command some glowing worms instead, poor
stinker.
Python
2024-09-24 20:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false
Is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true,
poor stinker?
I already told you. You didn't get it.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
 (quite the
Post by Python
opposite actually). You'll never get it. Face it
Maciej.
Find another hobby.
No.
Command some glowing worms instead,
Comparing *you* to a glowing worms is an insult to worms :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.
Nice signature.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-25 05:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false
Is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true,
poor stinker?
I already told you.
You did. But lies have short legs, poor stinker.
So, is EG still assumed true? REALLY true?
Python
2024-09-25 08:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false
Is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true,
poor stinker?
I already told you.
You did.
Nice to hear.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-25 10:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false
Is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true,
poor stinker?
I already told you.
You did.
Nice to hear.
It's just that lies have short legs, poor stinker.
So, is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true?
Richard Hachel
2024-09-24 20:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false
Is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true,
poor stinker?
(quite the
Post by Python
opposite actually). You'll never get it. Face it
Maciej.
Find another hobby.
No.
Command some glowing worms instead, poor
stinker.
Euclidean geometry no longer applies when we go very far or when we go
very fast.

In Newton's universe, this still applies and we can talk about a frame of
reference in a "general" sense.

We then take four orthonormal axes, and everything is simple and very
practical.

Only, there is a small problem, a small grain of sand: anisochrony.

Oh, not much: about 3.33 nanoseconds per meter.

And if we go very fast, or if we go very far, it counts, even if it is so
small that Newton could neglect it.

Except that Römer, who saw far with his telescope, will realize that
something strange happens if we examine the revolution time of Jupiter's
moons depending on whether we approach or move away.

Römer did not realize that he had just discovered the first-degree
relativistic effect: universal anisochrony.

He believed that light took "a certain time" to reach the observer, he
never understood how the universe was designed, nor why, although he was
constantly observing all this live, he was constantly changing position,
therefore observer (or vice versa if we assume that the earth was fixed
and that it was Jupiter that moved).

So I repeat: in relativity, Euclidean geometry no longer applies.

The time axis is no longer perfectly orthogonal to the other three
dimensions.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-25 05:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false
Is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true,
poor stinker?
  (quite the
Post by Python
opposite actually). You'll never get it. Face it
Maciej.
Find another hobby.
No.
Command some glowing worms instead, poor
stinker.
Euclidean geometry no longer applies when we go
Sure, sure. Basic mathematics doesn't apply - because
an idiot has asserted.
Is 2+2=22 as well - when your "theory" needs it?
Richard Hachel
2024-09-25 14:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false
Is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true,
poor stinker?
  (quite the
Post by Python
opposite actually). You'll never get it. Face it
Maciej.
Find another hobby.
No.
Command some glowing worms instead, poor
stinker.
Euclidean geometry no longer applies when we go
Sure, sure. Basic mathematics doesn't apply - because
an idiot has asserted.
Is 2+2=22 as well - when your "theory" needs it?
No, I have never needed to say that 2+2=22 to establish my theories (not
just physical ones) and I always start from very serious and Cartesian
principles.
Those who say that I believe that 2+2=22 have not read me.
They are idiots.
I am much more Cartesian and much stronger than most relativist theorists
but they will never admit it.
I am not talking about men who turn into spaghettithis near black holes, I
am not talking about flying saucers and Roswell, I am not talking about
disks whose circumference contracts without the radius moving, I am not
talking about Langevin travelers who are followers of the time gap, and
other stupidities that physicists, new preachers of the prophet Einstein,
are very fond of.
I beg you, therefore, not to say stupid things about me, lying things
which will serve no purpose except to excite fools.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-25 16:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
1905 - nothing about so trendy nowadays
"counterexamples" against Euclidean
prejudices allegedly found in massive numbers
on Earth surface.
Relativistic doggies have invented them -
after their idiot guru announced EG false.
Yes - doctoring evidence, classics of
ideology oriented branches of science.
Nobody announced Euclidean Geometry false
Is it still assumed true, then? REALLY true,
poor stinker?
  (quite the
Post by Python
opposite actually). You'll never get it. Face it
Maciej.
Find another hobby.
No.
Command some glowing worms instead, poor
stinker.
Euclidean geometry no longer applies when we go
Sure, sure. Basic mathematics doesn't apply - because
an idiot has  asserted.
Is 2+2=22 as well - when your "theory" needs it?
No, I have never needed to say that 2+2=22 to establish my theories (not
As if insisting that EG doesn't apply was
somehow better.

Loading...