conker and ryantg...the notion of an infinite number of decimals is a cerebral and intellectual invention, with no connection to the real world.

In this context, in a pure mathematical realm of existence, we can play with infinite series, continued fractions, n-roots.

I think we have dealt enough with this topic, the existence of irrational numbers, in this thread: my previous messages brought to your attention the things that you cannot find in any textbooks: Borel's proof that reals do not exist, Kronecker's legacy, and H. Poincare amazing discoveries about transverse homoclinic points.

(Ramanujan never questioned the existence of irrational numbers)

*What is wrong with a right-angled triangle whose legs are 1 meter long and whose hypotenuse is then sqrt2?*

The answer is to be found virtually in your very question: we no longer have A TRIANGLE. In the real world, there are no perfect circles, squares, or "triangles" with sides 1, 1, sqrt2 - this is the point Kronecker, Borel and myself are trying to make.

raunchy, you are a homo ignoramus: you have chosen to live in a delusional world of your own order.

You actually wrote:

*Kind of like his explanation of lunar eclipses. The conventional explanation is elegant and fits perfectly well with what we observe in the RE model*

*How are galaxies affected so strongly by gravity without being pulled into a sphere? I mean, I'd get it if you said they're so massless on average that they aren't held together by gravity. But obviously that's not the case.*

The same goes for our solar system.

*So Einstein was wrong when he said that gravity happens as a result of mass curving spacetime? *

This is the kind of crap you are posting here each and every day.

You have a complete ignorance of the experiments performed by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century which do show and prove that gravity (either terrestrial or planetary) is not an attractive force.

You are also ignorant of the fact that the space-time continuum hypothesis was created out of thin air by Minkowsky; the extraordinary works by Barbour and Kozyrev on the subject of time do prove that time could not possibly be represented by single variable (added incorrectly to another abstract concept, that of space); indeed, their experiments prove clearly that time is a function of torsion.

The reason you cannot contribute to any FE serious discussion is obviously related to the above findings: your scientific education is inexistent.

Insanity is a hallmark of delusion, irrationality, unreasonableness; since there is no attractive gravity, and you believe that 1000 billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a spherical earth without such an attractive gravity, your belief qualifies you as being insane.

Each assertion that can be found in my messages is accompanied by copious bibliographical references and very precise proofs.

Choose any subject related to science, mathematics, FET vs RET for debate with me: I promise you it won't take more than 2 minutes to dismiss your doggerel.