|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
 Posted - 03/13/2005 : 18:33:19 [Permalink]
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though I can not speak for Hawking, I can speculate on the reasons behind his choice of wording.
Lets save a long discussion about this, Lets do the reasonable thing which is to contact with Hawking and asking him what he really means with his evaporation of black holes.
Your statement suggests that you have disregarded two very important factors:
1) Measurements are inaccurate.
2) Calculations made with inaccurate inputs are inherently flawed.
The number you have presented: 1,7 is derived from Einstein's calculations made in the early 1900s.
At that time we didn't have an accurate measurement of the speed of light.
At that time we didn't have an accurate measurement of the gravity constant.
At that time we didn't have an accurate measurement of the mass of the Sun.
At that time we didn't have as good optics and photographic media we have today.
And you expect Einstein's calculations and the calculations made from the photos to be flawless?quote:
We are finally having an agreement, so lets use to certify the validation of the theory of Relativity.
As we know by history, the validation of this theory was in base of all the above mentioned by you, and today we found out lots of errors.
That means that the theory itself is invalid because fails by errors.
Remember that in science a theory must be validated with facts, not so with errors. You are telling to me and yourself that this theory of Relativity should not be validated.
The computer that is processing the deviation in time in the satellite in orbit does not use temperature offset to compensate the time drift. It's using relativity.
quote:
I quite disagree. The receiver's atomic clock on earth is not affected by the changes of environment as the clocks in outer space, the receiver on earth fixes the incorrect data from the satellites and up-date the information in accord to its own atomic clock.
Yes, and we told you that your analogy was seriously flawed, and suggested alternative analogies. You have ignored them, then claiming we "evade this fact".
Why don't you acknowledge that we have presented counter-analogies, so we can explore the differences between them? I claim my analogy is more accurate, and is based on the chronological order of the event it was meant to convey. It also have more accurately described the function of the different characters involved.
Oh, I apologize for such attitude of mine that I did not pay attention to that posting of yours, please give me the chance to look for it, and I will answer you later on.
That may be true, as a proverb. However, it does not apply to Einstein's theory, because it's foundation was laid on mathematics, not Eddington's flaws.
In fact, the prediction Einstein made was calculated from inaccurate data in the first place. The flaws were in the inputted data, not in the formulae themselves.
The mathematical calculations of Einstein failed, and Eddington manipulated a hoax to validate the failed mathematical calculations of Einstein.
I'll hope that you understand what happened now.
Yet you demand perfection of Einstein and Eddington in order in order to accept the theory of relativity!
The truth is, we both agree that two phenomenon do not repeat exactly the same. And when I say exactly, I mean really exactly. Quantum fluctuations will ensure that nothing can be exactly repeated. However, we know our methods of observing everything in the universe is inherently flawed, and in most situations we know how large the uncertainty is. That's why we can say that we know the speed of light with 6 or 8 digits accuracy.
We can easily get most professional astronomers agree about the "duration of the rotation" of Earth if we agree to one second uncertainty. Which I find reasonable. I'm sure astronomers can agree even with a more accurate reading, but I'm not that kind of amateur astronomer, so I can't tell where to draw that line.
Actually, that is the point, it is not me the one who wants to portrait Einstein as "perfect", it is the relativists who spread out that assumption. You can see clearly that my postings are showing the current status of the theories, their flaws and why some of them must be discarded. When the plates of the British expeditions were reviewed, the plates showed that Newton was vindicated because his calculations were more accurate.
That is the way you actually imply about Einstein's formulas against Newton's formulas, right?
Well, in this case, Newton's calculations and prediction was vindicated while Einstein's prediction was discarded. A fraud changed the results by favoring Einstein over Newton.
Legally, the theory of Relativity is invalid, a fraud cannot be accepted to validate a theory by any means.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As president Bush says, "you can run, but you can't hide".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the most amusing thing you have said until this post, as Usama Bin Laden is still at large. You really do have a wicked sense of humour!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, when you watch the movie "911 Farenheit" you actually find out that president Bush and Bin Ladem are "step brothers". (The movie portraits to Laden's father as president bush's "daddy" by lots of economical transactions favoring Bush.)
How can a person betray to his brother? Based in that movie, the words of president Bush do not apply to "family members". |
 |
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 18:52:21 [Permalink]
|
My point to Lawrules is that if there's no practical difference in two hypotheses, A and B, but A is thoroughly explained, and B isn't explained at all, then there's no practical (or theoretical, for that matter) reason to give credence to B. Lawrules is expecting us to dismiss Einstein's working theories in favor of... nothing.
Excuse me please if I intervene in this conversation but someone is talking about me. The question is if Relativity is really necessary instead of looking for a substitute. Lets see, Einstein himself wasted his last years trying to unify his imaginations with the factual results observed by testing the predictions of Quantum. The Quantum theorist don't seem to be looking for any "unification of theories, so far their predictions are validated very well.
Why the relativists want to unify theories when they have been proved reject themselves? No doubt that Relativity is so unnecessary that the private compamies, NASA, the army and everybody use Newton's calculations instead of Relativity.
The 15 minutes of Relativity died in reality as soon Einstein tried to unify his theories with other theories, only then Einstein found out that he was wrong, totally wrong. He died in a miserably shadow of deception, he proved himself that imaginations are not more important than knowledge.
For example, he tells us that clocks on satellites slow down because they're in a different environment than on Earth, but he doesn't offer even a single rational reason why that different environment slows the clock (temperature ain't it, as we know from the construction of atomic clocks). Einstein does, and he does so accurately, through two theories: both special and general relativity (if you ignore one or the other, the predictions aren't accurate anymore).
You said, construction of atomic clocks, but that construction was made inside our atmosphere and not in outer space. Astronauts lose bone density in outer space because that environment prevent them to renew their bones as we do on earth. I strongly recommend you to please, up date your knowledge and discard the inherited myths from the past. We live in a new epoch in where almost everything which is B.C. (Before Castro) is commonly obsolete.
Lawrules is offering the physics version of creationism: just like we're supposed to ditch evolution in favor of "God did it," Lawrules tells us we're supposed to throw out Einstein in favor of an explanatory vacuum.
On the contrary, you are receiving different explanations to describe the same phenomenon and you are the ones who said, "No, because Einstein says so."
Or, maybe he'll eventually get to the real point of this thread, and introduce us to some sort of "new physics," and then we'll probably (my prediction) be able to show him how it is mathematically equivalent to Einstein's equations.
Lets see later on if what you just said is true or false. I stand with the same method even with your prediction from above, not to assume results but to validate predictions in base of facts.
Best wishes. |
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 18:57:03 [Permalink]
|
Take a digital quartz watch, compare its functional work with a similar one for a week. After being sure that both work well and they are set at the same data, put one of them in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator.
Check both clocks data everyday. The clock in the freezer will start to give a disparate data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the batteries don't work as well when you put them in a freezer.
That is a good accepted reason. The same as well, the vibration frequency of the atoms of Caesium don't work as well when you expose those clocks to a different environment other than ground zero on earth. |
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 19:04:13 [Permalink]
|
My thoughts precisely. It must feel really great to consider one's self superior to not only Hawkings, but Einstein and the gang.
On another matter, though, I wonder how one goes about contacting Mr. Hawkings...
I really show myself very humble with my suggestion, but if you consider that this easy task of contacting Hawking is not possible because he is in so high level of existence, please try by praying. |
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 19:42:46 [Permalink]
|
The idea that a single test validates or invalidates a theory is a symptom of your ignorance of the process of science, Lawrules, and not a proper criticism of relativity in any form.
Actually no, Dave, that is what you believe when a single total solar eclipse was enough for you to validate a theory. A single flower does not make Spring.
This is false. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it will always be false.
Please explain why when a theory's foundation is found false its consequences still valid.
The negative biological consequences are simply not relevant to the validity of relativity. There are no negative biological consequences to an atomic clock, and they validate relativity each and every day.
They do not. Actually everything changes in outer space, the status of metals, living creatures, and whatever that was on earth suffer changes in outer space. That is a fact. Just look for web sites referring to experiments made in outer space, even the studies of how aracnids make their webs in that new environment have been studied. Please, before you stick blinding in your theory, open you eyes to the knowledge about reality thanks to the new observations in outer space, please do that.
Do not expect better in traveling at faster speeds, the negative biological consequences will always exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say "faster speeds," I said constant acceleration. Biologically, constant linear acceleration is no different from gravity.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The outer space is not our natural environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you simply ignored my point(s) about different environments.
I do not ignore them, you just can not agree with yourself when you assume that biological effects of change of environment may not be observed if the space ship travels at speeds close to the speed of light. Such is not correct.
And I pointed out that "black hole evaporation" is a term included in Wikipedia, without the implication that black holes are liquid. You can continue to argue this if you'd like, but unless you tell us how Hawking context implies liquidity, you're going to be going nowhere.
Maybe my web search is not working properly, can you please post exactly what that Wikipedia says about it? By the way, if it is possible, when such Wikipedia published that?
You are obviously scientifically ignorant of the facts.
The universe is calculated to be 12 to 14 billion years old, but due to expansion, it was recently calculated to be about 148 billion light years across.
And gee, Einstein didn't even agree with what's now called "the Big Bang" theory, and thought that the universe exists in a steady state. That's four things Einstein was wrong about (five if you include his 100-million-light-year figure). None of them invalidate either theory of relativity.
Why are you so intent on making such ad hominem logical fallacies?
Yes it does it. The 100 million light years of diameter of the universe calculated by Einstein is based in the predictions of the theory of General Relativity, and by such, that is another demonstration that this theory was wrong. You may assume a close estimate, but we are talking that the current estimate is hundreds percent more than Einstein's 100 million light years.
And you call to me "ignorant"...Lol.
As you are ignorant of, his theories are in use in GPS. They correctly predict the orbit of Mercury. Satellites are being launched these days which will test even more of the predictions of Einstein's relativity theories.
I quite to disagree with you. Einstein's prediction about Mercury's orbit fails by several seconds as Newton's prediction does. Wasting money in trying to prove the imaginations found in the theories of Relativity is a bad policy. I suggest you readers to please call your congressman and ask for to use the money in real science.
I don't see any intent to learn on your part. People have been offering you information and counter-examples to just about everything you've posted, yet you persist in your fallacious arguments and villification of Einstein.
I must say, however, that I've learned quite a bit from my fellow posters who've provided solid answers to your points. So I'll thank you for that, but shake my head at your attempts to portray yourself as someone trying to learn this science.
That is a good one, as I am skeptic, I will ask you please to number one by one the "solid" answers given against my points. Remember that no additional point is valid until the main foundation of relativity is validated with facts and not with fraud.
You cannot put your shoes on before your socks. The same as well, here you must prove first that there indeed was a 1.7 seconds of deflection against the 0.8 seconds of deflection predicted by Newton.
That main forndation of Einstein has been found false, what other solid points are you talking about? Please, make your list.
|
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 19:55:59 [Permalink]
|
Oh fer crisakes!!!
PAY ATTENTION. The idea that space travel can cause biological damage from radiation (or anything else) has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the time dialation effect.
If the twin that went into outerspace, in the twin paradox, died from excessive radiation exposure his corpse would be younger than his brother when he returned to Earth.
Do you understand the twin paradox is just and easy way (for most people) to demonstrate the time dialation affect, it really has nothing to do with health.
I recommend that you take some physics courses at your local community college.
Oops!...
furshur, conservation of dead bodies won't make them be "younger" than live persons.
Health is an issue in space traveling, actually is an issue in any traveling to foreing countries, the doctors may recommend certain pills to contrarest the effects of the germs in the food of other countries. More about it is concerned in space traveling. That essenctial issue was ignored by the relativists when they ignored about such negative health consequences.
Between the rate of accelerated aging of humans in space against the rate of getting younger in a constant acceleration of the space ship, well, by the currenbt effects observed until now, it appears that those astronauts will be dead before they get younger...
The Twin Paradox must be then up-dated, "Paul's cadaver will return younger than Peter." |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 22:40:53 [Permalink]
|
Law wrote {about the deviation of light around the sun}:
quote:
Excuse me, but please read that such figure says that the drawing has been exaggerated to show you the deflection. That drawing is not valid.
Your joking right? The drawing was made to help illustrate what was happening to the light ray, but because the deviation of the light rays are so small they clearly stated that the deviation was exagerated. Do you think that somehow negates the point that the light is affected by gravity??
Law wrote:
quote:
Between the rate of accelerated aging of humans in space against the rate of getting younger in a constant acceleration of the space ship
Both of these statements are wrong.
You do not age more quickly in space. Your muscles can atrophy from a weightless environment and you can have damage to your body from radiation. Neither of these effects have anything to do with aging, though. If you have some evidence that people age faster in space please enlighten me.
Relativity does not say you get younger with acceleration. It states that you will experience the time dialation affect at reltivistic speeds. You would not get younger you would age more slowly.
Law said:
quote:
I quite to disagree with you. Einstein's prediction about Mercury's orbit fails by several seconds as Newton's prediction does.
Sites like Cornell and NASA disagree with you. They seem to think that the orbit exactly matches with Einsteins theory. Maybe you could contact them and staighten them out.
Law wrote:
quote:
Why the relativists want to unify theories when they have been proved reject themselves? No doubt that Relativity is so unnecessary that the private compamies, NASA, the army and everybody use Newton's calculations instead of Relativity.
Relativist? The church of the holy relativity, oh boy...
For most common situations you do not need to use relativity. But in many cases you do - SUCH AS WITH GLOBAL POSITIONING, why do you pretend it is not used in cases like this???
I found much if not most of what you wrote to be at odds with modern physics and cosmology. Your arguments are very weak - particularly our insistance to only accept the failure of the 1919 experiment to measure the deviation of light around the sun, and ignore all of the successful experiments of that have occurred since then. This type of biased analysis greatly weakens your position.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 23:40:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
Facts are the rule, and only facts will disprove the veracity of the statements.
So show me the facts which prove that the only experiment which could possibly have validated or invalidated Einstein's theories was Eddington's. Show me the facts which prove that no experiment since then could prove Einstein correct. Because that is what you've been saying: that only Eddington's validation matters.
That's a mighty large piece of work you've set yourself up for, right there.
After that (since that is a major assumption of your arguments), we can discuss how "dimension" means "variable" in science, how time is a measure of change (and any measure can be a viariable - and thus a dimension), how temperature is not the reason satellite clocks run slower, and how Hawking described his new use of the word "evaporate," and didn't just toss it around as if people would understand it.
Because if you cannot show the facts which invalidate Einstein, I don't have much time for your other nonsense.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 23:50:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
Excuse me please if I intervene in this conversation but someone is talking about me. The question is if Relativity is really necessary instead of looking for a substitute. Lets see, Einstein himself wasted his last years trying to unify his imaginations with the factual results observed by testing the predictions of Quantum. The Quantum theorist don't seem to be looking for any "unification of theories, so far their predictions are validated very well.
What?!? What is "String Theory" if not an attempt to unify quantum theory with gravity? Einstein's predictions are also validated very well, and the predictions of quantum mechanics depend upon relativity. Do you really think that quantum theorists do not calculate the time dilation due to speed for the particles they're interested in measuring? If so, you're naive.quote:
Why the relativists want to unify theories when they have been proved reject themselves? No doubt that Relativity is so unnecessary that the private compamies, NASA, the army and everybody use Newton's calculations instead of Relativity.
NASA and the Army both use relativity to make GPS and other satellites work. Your ignorance of this matter is huge.
quote:
You said, construction of atomic clocks, but that construction was made inside our atmosphere and not in outer space. Astronauts lose bone density in outer space because that environment prevent them to renew their bones as we do on earth.
As soon as you can show that atomic clocks are biological and depend upon bone density to measure time, you'll have a good analogy here. Until then, you're simply wrong.quote:
On the contrary, you are receiving different explanations to describe the same phenomenon and you are the ones who said, "No, because Einstein says so."
No, you haven't provided a single alternative explanation for anything, yet. You've only told us that Hawking, Einstein and Eddington were wrong. You have not taken the next step, and told us what's correct. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 23:58:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
The same as well, here you must prove first that there indeed was a 1.7 seconds of deflection against the 0.8 seconds of deflection predicted by Newton.
You've got to be joking. We know more about the Sun and its environment than Einstein did, why should I have to prove a wrong number to show that Einstein's theories are correct?
Do you really not understand the process of science? Actually, I'll have to assume you don't, since you think science and philosophy are somehow fundamentally different. Yet, the "philosophy of science" is an on-going topic of discussion. All epistemologies are philosophies, really. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 06:24:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
The theory of Relativity also is invalidated because instead of using six other fixed stars positions as references of comparison, only five were used with the African expedition plates. The validation was a complete fraud. No doubt about it.
Prove to us why we need six stars, and only five should invalidate the measure...
You really only need three stars to be able to measure the offset. You should know that if you're familiar with basic geometry.
quote:
Excuse me, but please read that such figure says that the drawing has been exaggerated to show you the deflection. That drawing is not valid.
The drawing is invalid for use as a measurement. It is used as an illustration. In the same way that you say "I'm hungry like a wolf" - that doesn't mean that you're a wolf.
quote:
The third prediction of the theory is light should lose energy as it climbed out of a gravitational field. The gravitational red shift of light was first measured in the spectra of cool red dwarf stars. Accurate measurements were made on the Earth's surface by sending light up and down a tower. The Mossbauer Effect, which allows the frequency to be measured very accurately, was used.
WAit a second right there, first the theory uses the language that it is not light the affected by gravity but the affected and distorted space-time will cause the deviation of light.
In many ways, the effect is interchangable. If you are so narrowminded that you can not accept that one word can describe several phenomena depending on the situation/context, and that one phenomenon can have several words describing it, then I'm not going to be able to explain to you where you are going wrong.
There are so many faulty assumptions you have, I barely know where to starts. I'll continue later when I have more time. Because this is going to take a lot of time.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 14:02:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
1)- The theory indeed did not pass the test. That is a fact. No one can deny that, there are lots of credible witness who portrait the validation of the theory of Relaitivity as controversial.
Name them please.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 14:43:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
Actually, the closest interpretation is that black holes are made of liquid and evaporate, because expelling radiation is not found as a scientific definition of "evaporation".
The reason why "expelling radiation" nor any other term makes sense in regards to Hawking radiation is because it is not the Singularity that emits radiation nor particles, nor is it the area within the Event Horizon. The Hawking Radiation is produced in the vicinity of the event horizon, apart from the black hole.
Since the theory about how a black holes lose it's mass as Hawking Radiation in great detail explains how it loses it, it is perfectly clear that the use of the term "evaporate" is not meant to describe the physical process of evaporation as it happens to liquids, but it is clear that it is used figuratively.
The reason I can say this is because the black hole never "expels" atoms or molecules, as you claim "the correct use" of the the term implies. This invalidates (as you seems to quick to assert) Hawking's use of the term as meaning the physical process. The other option is a figurative use of the word. And Hawking is smart enough to know how to use both definitions.
Do you want me to try explain to you in layman's terms how a black hole evaporates?
quote:
Your interpretation is different, but you are not Hawking.
I know enough about Hawking's theories, and the English language to see how you are mistaken. But the question is, are you prepared to even reconsider your position about "evaporate" and "liquid black holes" if I can show you that Hawking is using the word evaporate as a figure of speech?
quote:
This matter must be resolved by listening what Hawking says about it. You might understand that my proposition is the wise solution to this controversial use of the word "evaporate".
I propose that it is unnecessary, and that one only has to examine the theory closer in order to see that there is no contradiction.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 15:10:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
This is not as simple as you want to see things. I asked in my first postings to prove the last theorem of Fermat x^n + y^n = z^n using grains of rice, in other words, tranlasting those numbers in a physical event which can be tested, analized, evaluated, and more. There is no reply to my requirement.
The "last" theorem of Fermat is not really x^n + y^n = z^n, but the mathematical proof that there is no integer sollutions for n>2
Thus, it will be impossible to verify the validity of Fermat's theorem using grains of rice.
quote:
A theory is just an attempt to explain a phenomena, a theory is not the rule, a theory is not permanent, theories come and go.
You forgot one thing: Theories can get modified if new facts come in showing the need for modification.
If you agree on that, I can agree with you on this statement.
quote:
Ptolomey was an ancient scientists. He measured lots of things, between them, the orbits of planets, the moon and...yes...and the sun.
His measurements about the "size" and the "orbit" of the Sun around the earth are amazingly correct, they fit very well with the observations made by Ptolomey.
If by "they fit very well" you mean, by the standard of the equipment of that time, and considering that he only managed to get the relative distances of the Earth-moon-sun system right.
quote:
The point here is to recognize that without the fraud commited by Eddington in 1919, the world should be free of lots of imaginations which are wrongly considered as scientific theories.
Eddington's fraud did not invalidate Einstein's theories.
Eddington's fraud invalidated Eddington's experiment.
Since the the experiment was invalidated, it could not be used to validate or invalidate Einstein's theory.
When Eddington forged the result of the experiment, the scientific value of it became void, disqualified for use in validation of the Theory of Relativity.
"Think about that."
(I'll write more later) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 17:49:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
This is not as simple as you want to see things. I asked in my first postings to prove the last theorem of Fermat x^n + y^n = z^n using grains of rice, in other words, tranlasting those numbers in a physical event which can be tested, analized, evaluated, and more. There is no reply to my requirement.
The "last" theorem of Fermat is not really x^n + y^n = z^n, but the mathematical proof that there is no integer sollutions for n>2
Thus, it will be impossible to verify the validity of Fermat's theorem using grains of rice.
I totally missed this one. LOL.
Lawrules, do you even know how to construct mathematical proofs? I think Dr. Mabuse is a little cryptic with his answer. I will be more blunt. What you are suggesting Lawrules, is a proof by exhaustion. I.E. test every possibility, and show that each possibility either works or doesn't work. This is the only way to do a physical test. Hence we need to test all n for n=3 to n=infinity!
Do you think its reasonable for someone to have infinite amounts of rice Lawrules? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
