Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Induction is Wrong
Replies: 8   Last Post: Nov 30, 2012 5:55 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Brian Q. Hutchings

Posts: 4,975
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Induction is Wrong
Posted: Nov 30, 2012 5:39 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

also, let us recall the two-and-a-half-page theorem,
quite elementary, showing the isomorphism
of induction & deduction, and a simple formula
with which to interconvert, in *Mathematics Magazine*
(MAA.org), thank you.

thus:
a)
Minowski's silly slogans about mere "4d phase-space,
easily supplanted by quaternions (or "vector mechanics,
the original"), and b)
Newton's crap "theory of light,
as masslees rocks." I mean,
get over it.

> Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

thus:
not even Hubble actually believed in this tripe;
light must needs propogate through the electrons & positrons
around nucleii & antinucleii of "free space,"
whose permeability & permitivity are similar to air's (but,
even closer to "one, or Pascal's plenum,
which he thought to be in his experimental apparatus").

Einstein's terminology of "photons" has always
been needlessly shot through the lens of "massless rocks
o'light" -- phooey -- starting with the big E., hisself,
not to mention Newton's soi-dissant "theory of light."

> Start with Hubbles Law.

thus:
why is Trickier Dick Cheney from the Nixon Administration,
not questioned on his role in averting USA jetfighters
from that pentagonal thingie in DC?

why do "truthers" not see the rather large difference
in the type of construction of that,
compared with "the world's tallest pair of buidlings?"

thus:
I thought that you promoted the ideal,
that the Arctic was "warming because of dereased albedo,
due to less floating ice" -- even though this is terribly wrongsville.
(there is no where, thereat;
there is no why, thereby.)

just say,
"the angle of total reflection of sunlight at the interface
of air & water, viz Snell's law, thank you!..." I mean,
that is two indices of refraction related trigonometrically
-- just do it!

> The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling. In recent years,
> satellite measurements of albedo show little to no trend.
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm


thus:
there is no essential difference between the M-strip and
the K-bottle, and the essential character is that
they both self-intersect in some sort of "singularity" --
it's Grea-a-a-t!

> this (standard) representation of a Klein bottle is totally erroneous.

thus:
completely alleviated (or "obviated") by the Alfven cosmology,
conforming to the Dirac proviso of equal amounts of antimatter;
you cannot distinguish them by "antilight!"

> a galaxy is a massive, gravitationally bound system consisting of

thus:
the vast majority of mutagens, teratogens etc. is found
in the naturally occuring compounds in plants,
such as shown by the Ames assay,
which uses a standardized salmonella specie.

that is what Bruce said in a talk at UCSantaCruz,
that I stumbled upon, years after he wrote a rather apocalyptic
article
for *Whole Earth Review*.

thus:
as for "Arctic albedo," the whole debate is wrongfully premised,
as I have stated over & over, again,
with "these-here clowns, to utterly no commentarium."



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.