1. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Thanks for proving the point I was making. I can only conclude, seeing as this isn't the first time, that you don't bother to read the posts you quote, you just look for an excuse to post more ignorance.

You clearly cannot do any special relativity or set theory, it's why you demand other people provide proofs (proofs you can find on Google), rather than you doing the algebra yourself.
Open up the thread you all closed. The only thing you can do with me is make false accusations and then close threads.
If you actually could beat me you would leave the thread open and make it clear to everyone you are superior.

Just like here, we have eliminated the GR/acceleration effects and all we have left is Einstein's statement.

If you want to really debate science, then start with Einstein's statement about the clock that moves in a circle, emit a light pulse when the two clocks are at the same place and then measure the speed of light along a y-axis. Let me know what you come up with. If you refuse to do the calculation like I have, then that proves you know you are wrong.

2. Originally Posted by chinglu
Open up the thread you all closed. The only thing you can do with me is make false accusations and then close threads.
If you actually could beat me you would leave the thread open and make it clear to everyone you are superior.

Just like here, we have eliminated the GR/acceleration effects and all we have left is Einstein's statement.

If you want to really debate science, then start with Einstein's statement about the clock that moves in a circle, emit a light pulse when the two clocks are at the same place and then measure the speed of light along a y-axis. Let me know what you come up with. If you refuse to do the calculation like I have, then that proves you know you are wrong.
The real problem is your intellectual dishonesty. You make irresponsible claims about stuff you clearly don't understand. That's your problem. Until you spend the time to become more conversant on what relativity actually predicts you're just another intellectually dishonest crank and will frequently be treated as such.

3. Originally Posted by chinglu
I don't know what to tell you.
Here, you're stating the obvious
If the rest of your response is supposed to be in regard to this:

Originally Posted by chinglu
We can both agree acceleration/gravity differentials are absolute under GR/SR so we can factor that out of the clock timings as done pre-launch for a GPS satellite.

After that we are left with time dilation of SR.
Which is clearly incorrect because GPS satellites are NOT calibrated "absolutely". If they were, they wouldn't have built in mechanisms to correct for various effects, mostly gravitational.

And this:
Originally Posted by chinglu
That has nothing to do with the GR/SR acceleration/gravity effects. These are absolute.

If you believe they are not, then you believe GR is false.
Is clearly a strawman. You introduce the idea that acceleration/gravity is absolute. What does it mean?
It certainly doesn't pertain to GPS or any satellite. So it doesn't pertain to the earth or any planet either.

Why do you think you can see "errors" in Einstein's papers, that nobody else can? Why don't you think you might be the one with the errors? Is it just because you believe an arrogant attitude is the best approach--assume everyone else is wrong except you? Have you noticed how well that works out?

4. Originally Posted by chinglu
Therefore, the observer at rest with the sun frame will conclude that the revolving clock will be slow.
Yes, this is basic, standard relativity...

Originally Posted by chinglu
So, since we emitted a light pulse when the origins were common and since they are again common and since they agree on the y axis dimensions and finally, since they agree the moving clock is slow, then there is no choice but to conclude if the light sphere is at the same location on the y axis, then they must disagree on the speed of light locally.
Would you be willing to change the path of your "revolving clock" so that it moves along a polygon? (Still neglecting gravity effects). If so, I think you will find the speed of light is c for both clocks. To see this, you would have to be willing to do some math though.

5. Originally Posted by chinglu
Open up the thread you all closed.
You've had plenty of chances. This thread is a chance for you to step up and do something more than just being dishonest. Until you can demonstrate you can enter into honest, informed discussion you are not welcome in the main part of the forum. You had plenty of opportunities, you squandered all of them. You're a hack and until you demonstrate otherwise you'll be confined to the hack part of the forum.

Originally Posted by chinglu
The only thing you can do with me is make false accusations and then close threads.
You're forgetting the many many posts I've made in response to your claims showing you to be mistaken, uninformed and dishonest. I've provided explanations, proofs and pictures of your mistakes and you take none of them on board. Your attempts to misrepresent me to my face only demonstrate you have no place in the main part of the forum.

Originally Posted by chinglu
If you actually could beat me you would leave the thread open and make it clear to everyone you are superior.
We've already done that. You've had threads where you've been allowed to post as you wish. In them you've had your arse handed to you by many people, many times, in many different ways. Now all you're doing is rehashing the same whiny arguments. You've had multiple threads discussing Cantor's work. Your ignorance and lack of understanding has been demonstrated many times. In all cases you ended up refusing to discuss things, you wouldn't answer direct relevant questions, you couldn't provide any mathematics and all you could do is make vapid, dishonest assertions. You have been beaten, again and again and again. There's no need to waste everyone's time beating you again. Do I think I'm superior to you when it comes to maths and physics? You're damn ****ing right I do. And I've proven it. As have several other people here. Anyone with a 1st year grasp of mathematics and physics is superior to you.

Originally Posted by chinglu
If you want to really debate science,
The problem is you don't want to debate. A debate is an honest back and fore between two parties, each of whom provides evidence and rationale for their position. In all previous instances you have refused to answer questions. You have refused to address detailed walk-throughs of your mistakes. You have refused to debate honestly. Whether you do it knowingly or you're simply so thick you don't grasp what 'debate' means I don't know.

Originally Posted by chinglu
If you refuse to do the calculation like I have, then that proves you know you are wrong.
You haven't provided any mathematics, despite me asking you. Now you demand I do and make assertions about what it means if I don't. Can I turn your logic around and conclude that since I asked you and you didn't provide that you admit you're wrong?

Besides, every time you have been provided with mathematics in the past you've shown you don't understand it. Set theory, relativity, cardinalities, none of them you grasp and when people have provided mathematical demonstrations you're mistaken you cannot retort them because you cannot understand them.

I asked you for mathematics, you haven't provided any. You're the one who started this thread, the onus is on you to justify your position. Since you seem incapable of doing that there's nothing to discuss. If I were to employ your own logic I'd conclude you are admitting you can't justify your position.

6. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
You've had plenty of chances. This thread is a chance for you to step up and do something more than just being dishonest. Until you can demonstrate you can enter into honest, informed discussion you are not welcome in the main part of the forum. You had plenty of opportunities, you squandered all of them. You're a hack and until you demonstrate otherwise you'll be confined to the hack part of the forum.

You're forgetting the many many posts I've made in response to your claims showing you to be mistaken, uninformed and dishonest. I've provided explanations, proofs and pictures of your mistakes and you take none of them on board. Your attempts to misrepresent me to my face only demonstrate you have no place in the main part of the forum.

We've already done that. You've had threads where you've been allowed to post as you wish. In them you've had your arse handed to you by many people, many times, in many different ways. Now all you're doing is rehashing the same whiny arguments. You've had multiple threads discussing Cantor's work. Your ignorance and lack of understanding has been demonstrated many times. In all cases you ended up refusing to discuss things, you wouldn't answer direct relevant questions, you couldn't provide any mathematics and all you could do is make vapid, dishonest assertions. You have been beaten, again and again and again. There's no need to waste everyone's time beating you again. Do I think I'm superior to you when it comes to maths and physics? You're damn ****ing right I do. And I've proven it. As have several other people here. Anyone with a 1st year grasp of mathematics and physics is superior to you.

The problem is you don't want to debate. A debate is an honest back and fore between two parties, each of whom provides evidence and rationale for their position. In all previous instances you have refused to answer questions. You have refused to address detailed walk-throughs of your mistakes. You have refused to debate honestly. Whether you do it knowingly or you're simply so thick you don't grasp what 'debate' means I don't know.

You haven't provided any mathematics, despite me asking you. Now you demand I do and make assertions about what it means if I don't. Can I turn your logic around and conclude that since I asked you and you didn't provide that you admit you're wrong?

Besides, every time you have been provided with mathematics in the past you've shown you don't understand it. Set theory, relativity, cardinalities, none of them you grasp and when people have provided mathematical demonstrations you're mistaken you cannot retort them because you cannot understand them.

I asked you for mathematics, you haven't provided any. You're the one who started this thread, the onus is on you to justify your position. Since you seem incapable of doing that there's nothing to discuss. If I were to employ your own logic I'd conclude you are admitting you can't justify your position.
First off, your closing of the Cantor thread with your last statement accepted that the missing cantor sequence union the set of countable sequences was countable. Then, you claimed, oh, you can just do it again and then the result was not countable. But, the result is again the same, a countable listing unioned with one sequence is still countable. As you can see, I am very specific here. There is not way to escape countability one unit at a time. Yet, that is your claim.

Now, who makes more sense?

Further, in this thread, I am very specific, a light pulse is emitted when the clocks are common.

One clock moves in a circle and returns to the other clock.

Here is Einstein's statement.

If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be $\frac{1}{2}tv^2/c^2$ second slow.

Next, since the y-axis is perpendicular to the line of travel, it is not length contracted. So, assume both frames the distance the pulse traveled is d.

Also, assume the time on the clock with the stationary observer is t.

By SR, c = d/t.

However, since the moving clock moves in a circle, then there exists some very very small time differential from the stationary clock, say t'.

Then, we must apply Einstein reasoning, the moving clock shows a time of t/γ.

So, the actual time on the moving clock is t' + t/γ.

According to Einstein, c is a constant between the frames and time dilation is a result of this assumption.

Now, since t' is absolute, we can remove t' from the calculations and all we have left is what Einstein claimed as the time on the moving clocks as t/γ.

But, that means, c' = d/(t/γ) for the moving clock.

We also have c = d/t for the stationary clock. But, under SR all observers must measure c as the speed of light.

Hence, c = d/t = c' = d/(t/γ). This means γ=1.

But, if γ=1, then v = 0, which is a contradiction.

There is the specific math and logic.

7. Originally Posted by Neddy Bate
Yes, this is basic, standard relativity...

Would you be willing to change the path of your "revolving clock" so that it moves along a polygon? (Still neglecting gravity effects). If so, I think you will find the speed of light is c for both clocks. To see this, you would have to be willing to do some math though.
I do not want to change the path since it follows statements made by Einstein.

8. Originally Posted by brucep
The real problem is your intellectual dishonesty. You make irresponsible claims about stuff you clearly don't understand. That's your problem. Until you spend the time to become more conversant on what relativity actually predicts you're just another intellectually dishonest crank and will frequently be treated as such.
The reason why you are a failure is because I have confronted you with a direct example and I have forced you to respond with ad homs.
That proves you have no idea what you are doing.

Since my example is extremely specific and you can't refute anything about it, then you are forced to do nothing but to call me names.

9. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Here, you're stating the obvious
If the rest of your response is supposed to be in regard to this:

Which is clearly incorrect because GPS satellites are NOT calibrated "absolutely". If they were, they wouldn't have built in mechanisms to correct for various effects, mostly gravitational.

And this:

Is clearly a strawman. You introduce the idea that acceleration/gravity is absolute. What does it mean?
It certainly doesn't pertain to GPS or any satellite. So it doesn't pertain to the earth or any planet either.

Why do you think you can see "errors" in Einstein's papers, that nobody else can? Why don't you think you might be the one with the errors? Is it just because you believe an arrogant attitude is the best approach--assume everyone else is wrong except you? Have you noticed how well that works out?
I completely agree that GPS satelltes are constantly resynched. So what. These factors have to do with the fact that the satellites experience acceleration earth clocks do not, the earth is not perfectly round etc.

Anyway, I have provided an extremely specific example. Clearly, you cannot refute the conclusions of the thought experiment that I have provided.

The question for you though, given this thought experiment, if you cannot make SR work, then you will need to see the error.

That is where we are.

10. Originally Posted by chinglu
Now, since t' is absolute, we can remove t' from the calculations and all we have left is what Einstein claimed as the time on the moving clocks as t/γ.
Where does Einstein's paper say that?
Anyway, I have provided an extremely specific example. Clearly, you cannot refute the conclusions of the thought experiment that I have provided.
Your thought experiment is poorly worded and you appear to be quite good at coming to conclusions nobody else can. That includes Einstein.

Tell you what, you keep believing you're more intelligent than anyone else, including Einstein. Put it on your cv. Posting here isn't going to elevate other people's opinion of you, you need to get out and spread the word--everyone except you is a dumbass.

11. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Where does Einstein's paper say that?Your thought experiment is poorly worded and you appear to be quite good at coming to conclusions nobody else can. That includes Einstein.

Tell you what, you keep believing you're more intelligent than anyone else, including Einstein. Put it on your cv. Posting here isn't going to elevate other people's opinion of you, you need to get out and spread the word--everyone except you is a dumbass.
1) The fact the time differentials for acceleration are absolute can be found using google. So, do your research.

2) Who cares what you think. My example is specific. If you can't refute my conclusions, then move along.

12. Originally Posted by chinglu
First off, your closing of the Cantor thread with your last statement accepted that the missing cantor sequence union the set of countable sequences was countable.
Well done, you've shown you are willing to lie to someone's face about what they said. Either you know you're lying, in which case you've proven my point that you shouldn't be allowed in the main part of the forum, or you are so colossally thick, so paste eatingly stupid, so reality warpingly moronic that you still don't grasp your mistake. Either way the closing of your Konig's theorem thread was completely valid, since you clearly lack the capability to discuss basic set theory.

Originally Posted by chinglu
Then, you claimed, oh, you can just do it again and then the result was not countable.
No, I didn't. Well done on showing your dishonesty again.

Sorry, you simply lack the brain power to do mathematics. Well done. Your parents must be so proud how you spend your time.

Originally Posted by chinglu
As you can see, I am very specific here. There is not way to escape countability one unit at a time. Yet, that is your claim.
You've been very specific with your dishonesty. You misrepresent or misunderstand what I and several other people told you and you obviously haven't spent any time trying to understand Cantor's work.

Originally Posted by chinglu
Further, in this thread, I am very specific,
You're illustrating just how amazingly ignorant of special relativity you are. You think what you said was specific? You think what you said was mathematics? I think more mathematical thoughts brushing my teeth!

Clearly you've never opened a book on special relativity because you'd realise just how laughably pathetic your attempt to do maths is. If you think you've justified your position you're very much mistaken. You didn't demonstrate anything, you just repeated your assertions.

Originally Posted by chinglu
I'm still waiting for you to do your maths. What you provided isn't even close.

If you're so damn sure you're right why are you asking us? Why haven't you sent your work to a journal, gotten it published and won a Nobel Prize for turning over special relativity and a Fields medal for turning over set theory? Why are you still a nobody stuck whining on a forum? Why hasn't Andrew Banks got any of his papers published in a reputable journal? Why are you both abject failures? Seriously, you couldn't even pass a freshman course on special relativity or set theory. You've obviously not understood what people have said to you about Cantor or light spheres and you lack even the ability to coherently describe the setup in question.

Originally Posted by chinglu
2) Who cares what you think. My example is specific. If you can't refute my conclusions, then move along.
And yet when your claims have been proven wrong time and time and time again you just keep coming back. Your claims about countability were disproven and yet you came back wanting to talk about Konig's theorem. Take your own advice, move on.

13. Originally Posted by chinglu
2) Who cares what you think. My example is specific. If you can't refute my conclusions, then move along.
I had the impression that you cared, since you've been responding to my posts.

Your "example" includes the requirement that t' can be "removed from the equations", because it's "absolute". This is something Einstein doesn't do, so how did you figure it out?
You aren't going to answer this question, are you? That's because you're really just trying to look like you have something, when what you have is an almost complete misunderstanding of the theory.

Likewise, when I asked which observer sees the light sphere in two different places, you had no answer, you still don't, right? If you answered that question it would show how big a hole there is in your understanding. But you aren't here to answer questions about your "theory" or your "specific example", are you?

14. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Likewise, when I asked which observer sees the light sphere in two different places, you had no answer, you still don't, right? If you answered that question it would show how big a hole there is in your understanding. But you aren't here to answer questions about your "theory" or your "specific example", are you?
This was Chinglu's problem in previous discussions. He doesn't know how to do frame transformations properly and so confuses himself. He ends up concluding, incorrectly, there's some problem because he gets 2 answers. He gets two answers, not special relativity. Then when the calculations are done properly for him by someone like myself he cannot find fault because he cannot understand. Then all he can do is repeat his assertions.

The amount of mathematics in Chinglu's last post is laughable. When I said I think more mathematical things while brushing my teeth I wasn't lying (I do some of my best thinking in random locations like the shower or half asleep on the bus). If a freshman had tried to answer a special relativity homework question in the manner Chinglu tried to justify his claims I'd have been disappointed in them. Yet Chinglu is claiming to have bested not just everyone who has ever done any relativity but all of set theory too. Shame he can't even do basic countability. In the interview process for the company I work for we have a basic countability question as a check of people's grasp of such concepts. Chinglu wouldn't just fail to answer it, he would immediately be put in the rejection pile. But then you need a PhD to apply and Chinglu couldn't get a high school GED.

15. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Well done, you've shown you are willing to lie to someone's face about what they said. Either you know you're lying, in which case you've proven my point that you shouldn't be allowed in the main part of the forum, or you are so colossally thick, so paste eatingly stupid, so reality warpingly moronic that you still don't grasp your mistake. Either way the closing of your Konig's theorem thread was completely valid, since you clearly lack the capability to discuss basic set theory.
No, show the cantor thread where you proved the emergence of the continuum from the natural numbers using only one sequence.

Next, Konig's theorem is trivial, You proceed by transfinite induction for each ordinal n. At each level, you associate an element at the level with both sides. Then, you choose the R least element in the difference set at that level since the levels do not contain the same number of elements.

At limit ordinals, it is trivial since you union all successors in which the condition holds. The union of all true is true.

Next, I have given math specifics for this thread, can you refute the below yes or no.

First off, your closing of the Cantor thread with your last statement accepted that the missing cantor sequence union the set of countable sequences was countable. Then, you claimed, oh, you can just do it again and then the result was not countable. But, the result is again the same, a countable listing unioned with one sequence is still countable. As you can see, I am very specific here. There is not way to escape countability one unit at a time. Yet, that is your claim.

Now, who makes more sense?

Further, in this thread, I am very specific, a light pulse is emitted when the clocks are common.

One clock moves in a circle and returns to the other clock.

Here is Einstein's statement.

If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be second slow.

Next, since the y-axis is perpendicular to the line of travel, it is not length contracted. So, assume both frames the distance the pulse traveled is d.

Also, assume the time on the clock with the stationary observer is t.

By SR, c = d/t.

However, since the moving clock moves in a circle, then there exists some very very small time differential from the stationary clock, say t'.

Then, we must apply Einstein reasoning, the moving clock shows a time of t/γ.

So, the actual time on the moving clock is t' + t/γ.

According to Einstein, c is a constant between the frames and time dilation is a result of this assumption.

Now, since t' is absolute, we can remove t' from the calculations and all we have left is what Einstein claimed as the time on the moving clocks as t/γ.

But, that means, c' = d/(t/γ) for the moving clock.

We also have c = d/t for the stationary clock. But, under SR all observers must measure c as the speed of light.

Hence, c = d/t = c' = d/(t/γ). This means γ=1.

But, if γ=1, then v = 0, which is a contradiction.

There is the specific math and logic.

16. Originally Posted by arfa brane
I had the impression that you cared, since you've been responding to my posts.

Your "example" includes the requirement that t' can be "removed from the equations", because it's "absolute". This is something Einstein doesn't do, so how did you figure it out?
You aren't going to answer this question, are you? That's because you're really just trying to look like you have something, when what you have is an almost complete misunderstanding of the theory.

Likewise, when I asked which observer sees the light sphere in two different places, you had no answer, you still don't, right? If you answered that question it would show how big a hole there is in your understanding. But you aren't here to answer questions about your "theory" or your "specific example", are you?

1) Einstein did not even mention t' in SR for the angular acceleration. Why did he fail to do that since he is so smart? Can you explain that? Well, I did and it can be eliminated from the result wit no loss of generality. If you want to claim it does not exist, as did Einstein, I am fine with that. It does not at all change my conclusions.

2) I have an answer to the light sphere being in 2 different places and gave it. It is a physical contradiction for 2 observers at the same place. Why are you wasting your time on this?

17. Originally Posted by chinglu
2) I have an answer to the light sphere being in 2 different places and gave it. It is a physical contradiction for 2 observers at the same place. Why are you wasting your time on this?
I'm wasting my time asking you, once again, which observer sees the light sphere in two different places?
It's a waste of time because you haven't answered this very specific question, and you won't, because you want to waste everyone's time with bullshit instead.

And I already know the answer is that neither observer sees two light spheres, nor does a third or fourth or nth. There is one light sphere centered on a point of emission, which point is different for observers in relative motion.
As to eliminating t' "without loss of generality", that's like saying you don't have to wear a watch to have a general idea what time it is. Your search for inconsistency in SR is trumped, sorry, by almost a century of people a lot smarter than you who haven't managed it.

18. Originally Posted by arfa brane
I'm wasting my time asking you, once again, which observer sees the light sphere in two different places?
It's a waste of time because you haven't answered this very specific question, and you won't, because you want to waste everyone's time with bullshit instead.

And I already know the answer is that neither observer sees two light spheres, nor does a third or fourth or nth. There is one light sphere centered on a point of emission, which point is different for observers in relative motion.
As to eliminating t' "without loss of generality", that's like saying you don't have to wear a watch to have a general idea what time it is. Your search for inconsistency in SR is trumped, sorry, by almost a century of people a lot smarter than you who haven't managed it.
1) How many time must I tell you, seeing the light sphere in a different location from the same place is a physical contradiction.

2) As to eliminating t' "without loss of generality", that's like saying you don't have to wear a watch to have a general idea what time it is.

Wrong, now explain why the great Einstein left it off since that is what you submit to.

19. Originally Posted by chinglu
1) How many time must I tell you, seeing the light sphere in a different location from the same place is a physical contradiction.
How many times does someone have to tell you, observers in relative motion are never "at the same place". Although their local systems of coordinates can coincide, they're in different frames of reference because they each have their own local time coordinate.

So there is no absolute position for the light sphere, as you seem to think. There is no absolute "instant" where the two origins are common--this is actually an artifice Einstein uses to establish simultaneity. So you're forced to consider an infinitesimal but non-zero interval of time for the emission event that coincides with the origins being "common", when in reality this interval doesn't exist.
As mentioned several times, it can only be said to exist when two observers are not in relative motion. Hence the idea of synchronised clocks (an "unusual" situation).

But I daresay even this rather modest level of my personal understanding, such as it is, is going straight over your head, which appears to be stuck in the 16th century.

20. Originally Posted by chinglu

Originally Posted by Neddy Bate
Would you be willing to change the path of your "revolving clock" so that it moves along a polygon? (Still neglecting gravity effects). If so, I think you will find the speed of light is c for both clocks. To see this, you would have to be willing to do some math though.

I do not want to change the path since it follows statements made by Einstein.
So you can not show (mathematically) that relativity fails for a clock traversing a simple polygonal path? Oh well.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•