"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ShV1g.4448$Lm5.778@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> eleaticus wrote:
>  > B.  In all competently expressed physical and geometric models in
>  > which coordinates are used, the coordinates each represent a
>  > distance (usually perceived as the length of projections on the
>  > respective axis).
>
> Spherical coordinates are a counterexample to this claim.
>
> So much for your "syllogism". Your claims are not a syllogism, anyway.
> <shrug>

You've gotten dumber over the years, Tom. Maybe I should start quoting you
again?

You translate many angles? Which is the subject matter (as frequently
mentioned in the text)?

My engineering hand books seem to skip that aspect of spherical coordinates.

But of course they can be invariantly transformed per translations.

Rho^2 =  x^2 + y^2 + z^2, competently expressed for translation purposes, is
rho^2 = (x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 + (z2-z1)^2, which is invariant under a
translation, hence the angles need not change since it is a direct function
of the individuallly invariant (under the subject  translations) (x2-x1),
y2-y1), and (z2-z1).

Try again, highly enhanced asshole. You are even more disgusting than the
likes of Grisse. You could do better. He can't.

Then again, you actually think you derived the BEER (Basic Equations of
Einstein's Relativity).

Somehow you didn't notice that when you got down to a critical point you
just waved your hands and said "there is no way to go from here, there are a
variety of possibilities, without justiication I'll go with the one that
suits me.

phhhhht!

eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus