A thread about Jack's capacity to discuss relativity

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Jack_, Mar 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    OK, prove this:

    Oh, and while you are at it, get us a definition of "ordinality", as Websters doesn't think that is a real word, and I tend to agree with them.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Some folks are very submissive to rules.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    This is not a refutation.

    Otherwise, state it in 2 sentences.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    So unless someone can sum up your misunderstandings in 2 sentences they haven't corrected you?

    I thought you understood logic?
     
  8. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Very nice, have you considered time dilation yet?

    What I want to see you do is refute when O elapses γr/c, the clock at O' does not elapse r/c.

    Let's stay on task.
     
  9. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    I do not think you understand, I play around.

    I understand this better than you two do.

    Now, does the moving frame origin elapse r/c yes or no.

    Since you want to make a judgment, make a judgment here.

    How long will this take?
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I was right in my initial assessment of you on the first day you came here then. You're unable and unwilling to learn.

    It is abundantly clear that you're not even at the level of the average first-year student on this subject.

    Use the other thread where I am attempting to baby-step you to the point where you can ask a coherent question.

    Done.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I suggest we try to keep this discussion in one place.

    Which thread would you like to use, Jack_? The current one, or this one:

    [thread=99729]Alternative twins paradox[/thread]

    ?

    Make a decision and I'll close the one you don't want.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Pete: should you have plus signs instead of minuses in the Lorentz transforms?
     
  13. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Thanks, yes. Rest frame of O has negative velocity in frame of O'.
    Fixed.
     
  14. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    I will hang in the twins thread.

    What issue belong to what now?

    Everyone is afraid of the twins's contradiction, so that is not it.

    Just let me know what you mean.
     
  15. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    I might consider the book cept I would not find my twins contradictin in it.

    Therefore, it is not up to date on the latest mathematics.
     
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Hi James,
    Can we keep the current threads open for the moment, and just prevent any new ones?
     
  17. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    *looks at his watch and whistles the "Jeopardy" theme music*
     
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Ah the "I don't already know it so I don't need to know it" crank (and creationist) mind set. Are you not intellectually curious? Do you not wish to read about the formal construction of the mathematical system which you seem to want to talk about so much? You claim the problem is endemic to special relativity so shouldn't be restricted to your 'twin paradox' set up, it should exist within the more general formal construction of special relativity. Are you not interested in the slightest to read what special relativity actually is and how its seen in the scientific community?

    You keep asking for maths and now you're saying you have no interest in any maths which is not immediately applicable to your one example? Do you believe that you are already aware of all results and methods which have any relevance to your 'twin paradox'? Your comment implies you do believe that, which is both arrogant and wrong. I've already demonstrated that the formal construction of Minkowski geometry can be done in terms of fibre bundles, which you did not and do not know anything about. I've already demonstrated you're ignorant of relevant things. Haven't you learnt from that? It would seem you don't wish to learn from your mistakes, one of which is believing you're not mistaken, despite evidence to the contrary.

    Do you honestly believe the mathematics you're doing is new? Do you really believe anything discussed in any of your relativity whinings is new? All you've done is high school geometry and 1st year vector calculus. Nothing you've done has been new or even particularly interesting, to say nothing of its non-factual nature.

    Your algebra I'd expect any high schooler competent at maths to be able to do. Your computer programming is something any competent student could pick up in a day. I have yet to see you provide a single novel result. I've yet to see you provide any discussion I'd not expect a 1st year to be versed in.

    You ask for maths. I provide it. I provide several different mathematical avenues relative to your claims. You failed to retort any. Now I provide book references and you dismiss them because you know they won't reinforce your mindset.

    You really are the physics equivalent of a creationist. You only read what will support your preconceived notations. You demand people provide you with mathematics and after they do you lie and claim they haven't. You construct straw men by saying "Relativity says...." despite you having no knowledge of what relativity says and knowing full well you don't. You put forth your claims are physics or mathematics yet any and all people working in physics or mathematics says otherwise.

    You have not come up with a single correct mathematical result which wasn't already known. You have not done any new mathematics. You've simply provided your interpretation of equations and rather than finding out what SR really says or implies you claim your paraphrasing of SR are accurate. Which they aren't, a fact every single person versed in SR has said to you.

    You've admitted to willful ignorance. You're repeatedly lied. You're unwilling to submit to journal review. You're naive about the scientific method. You don't even basic terminology in relevant areas, like 'proof' or 'event'. All this points to you being a fraud and knowing you're a fraud. If Reiku could get banned for wasting people's time, lying and willful ignorance I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be too. But I'm not a mod so I'm only able to voice my opinion, not act on it.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Ok. I'm now reserving this thread for discussion of Jack_'s qualifications and ability to discuss relativity.

    If you wish to actually discuss Jack's issues with time in relativity, please use the following thread instead:

    [thread=101058]Time in special relativity[/thread]

    Future discussion of Jack_'s motivations or ability will be merged with this thread.
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I would be quite interested to know specifically what Jacks qualifications are in this regard. I do not intend to play the 'argument from authority' game, as its flawed, but given Jack's claim to be well versed in plenty of relevant topics it would be useful for people to know at what specific level Jack claims working understanding.*

    He claims to have studied at the Uni of Wisconsin, Madison and to have taught undergraduates vector calculus there. What specific courses? What relevant topics were covered in the undergrad he did? What post grad thing was he doing which allowed him to teach undergraduates? How long ago was this? When he says "Relativity says...." what textbook or textbooks is he getting this from? If not books, what lecture notes? What relevant books has he read?

    He claims to have been on PhysOrg previously and been banned by Rpenner. That explains why his first threads requested Rpenner or I to reply, he's already acquainted with us. What was his PhysOrg user name, since I don't recall anyone with a university level education in maths or physics ever behaving as he does or making claims he does. Everyone with that level of education has had very similar views as myself so I cannot deduce who he was.

    * If he answers this then he nails his colours to the mast and cannot claim ignorance of particular methods/discussions at a later time. Hence why I think he'll refuse to answer, he has something to hide. And to prove this isn't some double standard if Jack wants me to answer the same question I will. As I imagine Rpenner, Pete et al. will too.
     
  21. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    rpenner knows who I am. And I am not going to discuss my creds with you.

    You seem to like wearing yours like clothing or decorations.

    Do you pierce your nose with your creds?

    Humans are funny in how they decorate themselves.

    You should be able to handle me directly which of course you cannot.

    I have taught you SR is a theory of multiple light emission points. You learned this.

    I taught you my twins contradiction cannot be broken and thus SR is false.

    OK, I do not want to go on and on.
     
  22. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    You're deluded.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Well, yes. I have many light emission points in my house.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page