A thread about Jack's capacity to discuss relativity

Not to mention his fondness for making incoherent usage of Godel's work, citing it in seemingly nonsensical ways that I've never seen from any logician I've ever personally met or watched. Kind of ironic too that Godel played an important role in helping develop Einstein's GR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And his love of citing Godel is all the more ironic when he can't use the word 'proof' correctly. He keep saying things like "I've provided maths proof I'm right. Can you provide maths proof I'm wrong?". Given two opposite views cannot both be true then either his 'proof' or my 'proof' was never a 'proof'. I doubt Jack noticed it but even then I proved things like points on the light cone mapping to points in the light cone I said "demonstration"or "justification" or "support" not "proof". In the case of things I've said about mathematical results they are proof since there's no question of needing any physical interpretation. Jack's entire claim is based on his (flawed) physical interpretation of particular mathematical things so 'proof' is often not appropriate.

Odd how someone whose done logic and set theory doesn't know how to use 'proof' correctly in a sentence... Its almost like he's a big fat liar.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, when does frame O think O' sees light a distance r in the frame of O'.

Since you understand proof and I do not, you can answer this.

How long?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, we are so blessed to run into superior beings like yourself.

I cannot but wonder how great your are.

Oh, if your are superior, why do you need to assert it? Why not prove it.

For example, prove my comments about Godel are false instead of talking about it.

Lots of folks come to this thread looking for trash.

They would like to see this from you so they can laugh.

If you cannot provide it, then they will laugh at you.

 

I think you're a little unwise trying to have a go at us for supposed arrogance when you start multiple threads which amount to "I claim all of mathematics and physics for the last 4 centuries have been wrong". You then ignore any and all corrections, comments or information.

Probably because they see your name as the last poster.

You keep saying "No one has provided a response" and yet anyone who is following these threads knows that to be false. You demand people answer questions and give you the mathematics, they do so and then you just lie and say they haven't.

Why don't you respond to what I've said over in the twin paradox thread? I provided pictures, equations and comments and you retorted none of them. I don't even think you understood them. Rather than trying to spread your claims across multiple threads in order to it to seem like people aren't replying to your questions stick to one thread and actually respond to what people say. I repeatedly ask you direct questions and you repeatedly ignore them. That, coupled with your attempts to insult Cpt, makes you a hypocrite.

 

What they figure out here is I ask direct questions from a person that claims to be a God expert of SR.
They are starting to laugh at SR.

When in the time of the stationary frame does the moving frame see light a distance r in al directions from its moving origin?

If you cannot answer this then the theory of relativity fails.

If you do answer this, then I will force the theory of relativity into a contradiction.

The folks are waiting for your answer.

 

Where did I claim that? When all you can do is put words in my mouth and ignore my direct questions and all responses people make to you its clear you've got nothing.

And whose this 'they'? No one who actually knows any SR, that's for sure. You've failed to convince anyone who knows any relevant physics and mathematics. You've failed to respond to anything we've said. You've refused to submit your work to a journal. So who precisely is this 'they'? No one who knows any relevant information.

You're pandering to an invisible made up audience and having to assume they buy into your lies. So you're assuming you have an audience, that they can't do any algebra and that they believe your lies.

And if you can't tell me the number I'm thinking of then you are a wife beater.

See, its easy to come up with complete non-sequitor. You have completely failed to justify your position and you're failed to respond to anything anyone has said to you.

If you're so sure you're right, submit your work to a journal. If I were running from you and scared why do I keep trying to get you to show your work to more people? What are you afraid of?

And whose 'the folks'? Anyone who can read knows I've replied to you on plenty of occasions and you've retorted none of it. Anyone who reads knows you lie about demanding people reply to you with 'the math' and then you ignore when they do. If there is a silent audience to your posts then I would imagine most of them are sufficiently intelligent to see you aren't. But if you want to go up a level then please submit your work to a journal. I've repeatedly said I will help you with the formatting so you have your work evaluated only on its scientific merit. Why do you keep avoiding replying to this? Why do you refuse? If you believe you're right and that 'the folks' await my answers then why don't you and 'the folks' take it to a journal? I've demonstrated I have more knowledge about SR than you but you call me 'primitive' and obviously not on the same 'level' as you and yet you're unwilling to show your work to people who undeniably have sufficient knowledge to evaluate your work.

You're unwilling to submit your work because you can't use the "You don't know enough" on a professor specifically selected by the journal as an expert in special relativity. You stick to forums because you think you can dismiss anyone here, even when its clear they have vastly more knowledge than you. I've put my maths where my mouth is. I've talked group theory, fibre bundles, representations, manifolds. All the kind of stuff you'd not hit till 2nd, 3rd or even 4th year courses at university. Funny how you've discussed none of them with me. Scared to admit you're a lying hack? Of course you are. I'm willing (and have on many occasions done so) to demonstrate my knowledge, the truth of my claims about my credentials, to put my maths where my mouth is. I haven't seen you do that once.

You demand people put up or shut up and when they 'put up' so well you don't understand their replies you give excuses. And you know you can't do that with a journal and so you are unwilling to submit to review. I submit all my work to a journal. I've had all my submitted work published. When you said you and I are on different levels, you were right. Except that the level you're on is a long long long long way down from mine. If you won't take up the offer to help submit to a journal then you basically admit you know you're a fraud. You have no excuse.

 

Yea, well, my twins contradiction is still sitting happy without any refutation, at least not any logical one.
So, there is clear evidence I submit math to this forum.

In addition, you have not been able in any way to stop it. You can only sit there while that twins SR contradiction remains in place.
Further, you have claimed all this math ability. Yet, I have asked a very simple question of LT. When does the light sphere in the moving frame claim light is a distance r from the light emission point in the frame.

You know SR claims that it happens. So, when in the coords of the stationary frame does this happen.
If SR cannot answer this simple question, then it is a worthless theory. In other words, that implies SR makes mathematical statements it cannot back up with the math. That is pretty funny.

That is like claiming GHC is independent of ZFC without being able to back it up.

I will teach you how math works. If you cannot prove a mathematical statement, then it is called an open question.

Finally, I put forth the math such that the combination of time dilation and the light sphere contradicts LT.

You have not been able to mathematically do anything with any of the above.

In short, my math is productive and your is not.

 

OK AN, let's see what you can do.

You already understand SR confessses multiple light emission points.

Sr claims light travels from A to B in the frame and that is absolute (in a theory of relativity) and free from contradictions.

Therefore, there exists an infinte number of absolute light paths and this you cannot deny.

Now, assume light is emitted at A and travels to B.

Certainly, when light hit B, you know where that is.

But, you look at point A and claim that is where light was emitted.

But, that is not true. While light moved, the light emission point moved in some unknown way because objects move in space we do not know the absolute motion of the object.

So, when you go to measure the light path, you claim light originated at A.

In reality, there exists a sphere of uncertainty around A based on the unknown motion of the frame.

Therefore, you cannot possibly know the absolute light path without knowing the absolute motion of the object.

Rpenner banned me forever for making this factual observation in science without any ability to refute or understand this fact.

This is the way of science. They are a bunch of witch doctors protecting the holy group think.

They cast aside those that can factually refute the science party line and ban any thoughts that challenge the mainstream.

So, this is how I beat up special relativity. It claims to know the absolute light path in a theory where everything is relative and not absolute. So, I keep rubbing Einstein's nose in this.

Let's see how intelligent you are.

 

The fact we're stuck having to explain to you basic concepts is the problem. If you can't grasp the fundamentals of SR then a discussion of specific case is pointless. You've already demonstrated such discussions are pointless as you still haven't grasped the relevant issues on the rigid sphere example.

 

These folks want you to stop talking and actually refute something.

They know I presented my cases and you have done nothing.

Further, they do not want to read your long posts that say nothing.

So, refute my stuff or tell all these folks you cannot.

 

What folks?

 

You're talking for an imaginary audience. This is yet another sign you have nothing to retort what I've said or any real belief you're actually right. Who are these 'folks'? Everyone else whose joined the conversation between you and I have sided with me. No one, no one, has agreed with you and yet you presume there's an invisible audience who strangely enough has identical opinions to you and are as blind as you when it comes to the comments people have responded with.

I've provided mathematics and you don't reply. I've provided diagrams and you don't understand. I provide explanations and you complain I'm typing too much. Each time you come up with an excuse and you fail to respond. For instance, I explained the different time slicing of the same light cone by different frames to get different light spheres which are still consistent with one another. Why can't you respond to that? Its relevant to your questions and yet you don't reply. Can't you? You want to pretend you're smart and yet you can't manage to read a lengthy post and reply to relevant comments? Is reading one post too taxing for you?

Perhaps you could ask one of your imaginary audience to summarise things for you so you don't have to read everything. Perhaps you could get one of them to write up your work for a journal because obviously you're too scared to. Perhaps one of your imaginary audience has more intellectual honesty than you. Hell, even if they are imaginary they'd have more intellectual honesty than you.

 

Well, he has announced that he has a better number for Pi than we do, and he claims that he has refuted Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity as well as disproving Darwins Theory of Evolution. He has shown us his 'maths' and many unfalsifiable assertions along the way in support of his contentions.

In short, his 'maths' - like his 'science' - have got this thread flushed down the loo to languish here in the cesspool. All of this in open and obvious pursuit of proving that his e - penis is much bigger than all of ours.

I hope that suffices as a summary.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Really? I'm not paying enough attention to him to have seen most of those, given he's not worth much attention at all. Where'd he say he's disproven evolution? And what precisely did he say about pi?

Wow, disproving SR would win a Nobel Prize and a Fields Medal. Constructing a 'better' notion of pi would be worthy of publication. Disproving evolution would be worth a Nobel Prize in a different category. Never mind all the lesser awards which inevitably come with such things, like the National Academy of Science medal, Dirac Prize, slews of honourary doctorates and the immortality associated to destroying paradigms in science, which he claims to have done in mathematics, physics and biology. Newton, Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, Darwin. They'd be but mere footnotes in science compared to his contributions.

And yet he refuses to submit work to a journal and can't even provide a single post where he's shown a working understanding you'd only see in people who have done more than basic 1st year material (which any interested high school student can do if they so wish). If he can't get past a bunch of postgrads on a forum he'll fail miserably when it comes to journals.

Besides, although I don't know his PhysOrg username he says he was banned from there by Rpenner and in his early posts on SR specifically wanted the attention of Rpenner and myself. No one banned from PhysOrg the entire time I've been there (4 years) has had good understanding of any university level science, yet he claims he posted there and has a degree from Wisconsin Uni and has taught undergrads vector calculus. If he and I have crossed paths before and that were true I'm sure he'd have brought it up, hence why I don't believe it. That's the problem with lying, its important to be consistent or your lies are obvious. And his most certainly are.

I stand by my offer to help him get his work to the attention of the science community by offering to do the formatting for any work he will type up. I'll convert it to the required PDF formatting using LaTeX, send it back to him so he can check it isn't tampered with and then he can submit it.

For some odd reason he's not taken me up on this. Just like every other crank I've offered it to.

 

I am wrong, no one comes to this place.

In fact, we are not here.

 

Man, you have done everything but provide the necessary mathematics to indicate SR can answer its own assertions.

When in the time of the stationary frame does the moving frame see light a distance r from the light emission point
?

Why do you cointinue to fail to answer this with the perfect SR?

 

stalker

 

All my proofs you cannot refute.

That indicates our ordinality.

 

Evidence says otherwise. I've had to repeat it because you didn't reply the first time. In fact you contradicted yourself by saying only 'you accept it' then saying something which contradicted it.

Am I going to have to repeat it again because you refuse to retort it?