Can anyone figure this out?

[MacM]

Photons don't accelerate. They always travel at c. Nobody has ever said anything different. (Nobody who knows what they're talking about, at least.)

Damn there you go again sticking your foot in your mouth. Now I will be forced to go back and dig up these statements.

[chroot]

If I mentioned it in only 6 posts out of a total of 309 posts, less than 2% of all my posts

What are you, dense? You mentioned "dark visitor" in 23 different posts, almost one in twelve.

That is why I made it and still do a policy to always tell how to read it for free, and in many posts tell that it was written as a recuriting tool, to get people not currently interested in physics interested.

I don't care! This is not why you were warned, or banned.

To this argument of yours, I replied, by way of explanation, that I could not just write another, conventional physics book. - there are thousands of good ones already available - because my target reader has no interest in physics, would never open a physics book etc.

I've heard your explanation already. I don't care! It's not mainstream, and doesn't belong on physicsforums.

I again challenge you to find any nonsense/ physics error in Dark Visitor.

Several members on physicsforums already ripped your arguments to shreds.

again I assume you are accurate on the first twwo dates, but 6May was the day I was banned, without warning.

You were not banned without warning. You received two warnings before the banning, on 20 March and 12 April. You read both, as I got read receipts for both. We exchanged no fewer than eleven private messages about the warnings. How can you possibly say that you were not warned? LOL

You on the other hand, know it was not a massive invisible object passing well outside of Pluto's orbit. You just "know" and do not permit careful, analysis of this subject at physics form. Just out of curriosity, have you warned Nereid not to post on this subject also?

My opinions on the subject are not relevant, again. It's not mainstream, so it doesn't belong physicsforums.

I am not advancing any "questionable theories."

Of course you are -- you yourself have described your theory as being highly unlikely.

I have an open mind on this question. Do you? From what you just said, your mind appears to be sealed - shut tighter than any bank vault!

Again, this is not relevant.

- Warren

[James R]

Billy T:

Take it from me: you can't win the type of argument you're trying to have with chroot. Just accept it and move on. Moderators decisions are final, and they are unlikely to change their minds because those who are affected complain.

From my own experiences as a moderator here, decisions to ban somebody, edit their posts etc. are never personal vendettas, but a judgment call to apply the rules and policies of the forum (which I freely admit are set by the moderators in an attempt to shape the forum to their vision). You're unlikely to change somebody's mind by arguing about it.

You've been invited back to physicsforums. Just don't break their rules. Accept it, and move on.

[Billy T]

Billy T:

Take it from me: you can't win the type of argument you're trying to have with chroot. Just accept it and move on. Moderators decisions are final, and they are unlikely to change their minds because those who are affected complain.

From my own experiences as a moderator here, decisions to ban somebody, edit their posts etc. are never personal vendettas, but a judgment call to apply the rules and policies of the forum (which I freely admit are set by the moderators in an attempt to shape the forum to their vision). You're unlikely to change somebody's mind by arguing about it.

You've been invited back to physicsforums. Just don't break their rules. Accept it, and move on.

I am sure you are right. I was not really trying to win any argument. My objective was to try to show that no subject should be forbidden, if the poster is not advocating any violations of standard physic. Crackpots, with unfounded theories should be corrected, but yet minds should be keep open to everything that is consistent with known physics.

As you know, I am a vigorious defender of orthodox physics, and most of my posts here do this. Sciforums has an abundance of crackpot theories. Defense of orthodox physics is much more needed here than at physicforum, and this is to the credit of Chroot. My time is limited, and my orthodox physics defense efforts here keep me very busy, so I doubt if I will have time to be active there again, now that sciforums is up and runnig again.

I do have a few words of advice, for all forum moderators, administrators of physics forums, especially ones like physicsforum, which is very careful to keep its post free of crackpot ideas and strives mainly to teach physics. These words are:

A good education in physics is not about just learning things like conservation of energy & momentum, inverse square laws (electrostatic and gravity) and the consequences that can be derived from them (e.g. Kepler's orbit laws, how Van de Graph generators work, etc.), etc. or about learning a lot of known facts (thermal conductity of copper, etc.) If physics were only about learning facts and accepted laws, then it would be only slightly more interesting than following Dewey Decimal system rules to put books on a library shelf.

What makes physics exciting, and has made for me it a live-long love affair, is its mysteries. Fortunate, the more we have learned about the universe, the more we find mysterious. It is very important, IMHO, that the unknowns (mysteries) of physics also be taught, not just the dull facts, if one wants to make the student a real lover of physics. There is so much that is strange to humans, but a appears to be true of nature, for example, to mention only a few: quantum entanglement, SRT effects, black holes and the associated radiations (Hawking & quasars), Big Bang universe creation & expansion, dark energy, dark matter, and yes Chroot, if you are reading, even the possibilites of "dark visitors" consistent will all known laws of orthodox physics.

To summarize, it is not only wise, but essential when teaching physics (at least part of the objective of most physics forums) to open the student's mind to all the possibilities consistent with known physics and to the mysteries that have yet to be explained.

No subject consistent with mainline physics should be forbidden at any physics forum. The discussion of the subjects hard for humans to understand should be encouraged. The mysteries, that make physics exciting, should be exposed. IMHO, a physics forum that fails to do this is failing its readers, even if it is showing how to follow the rules, do homework type of calculations according to these rules, and acquire a lot of facts. A well run forum should help also to demomstrate how exciting physics can be - to make the reader love it, as I do - not just able to do it.

[cato]

anyone notice that johnny5 does not post here anymore. =] I find that funny.

p.s. I didn't really think photons had infinite acceleration.

[Johnny5]

anyone notice that johnny5 does not post here anymore. =] I find that funny.

p.s. I didn't really think photons had infinite acceleration.

Well the post veered off course, and no one ever figured it out.

[cato]

people figured it out. your disproof requires you to ignore one of the two common postulates of SR. light must be traveling at c in all inertial frames.

[Johnny5]

people figured it out. your disproof requires you to ignore one of the two common postulates of SR. light must be traveling at c in all inertial frames.

This proof that SR is inconsistent, starts off by assuming that the Lorentz contraction formula is true. Equivalently, one could start off by assuming that light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames, and then derive the Lorentz contraction formula, and then arrive at contradiction. Hence, this proof overthrows SR.

[Billy T]

....one could start off by assuming that light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames, and then derive the Lorentz contraction formula, and then arrive at contradiction. Hence, this proof overthrows SR.

Please show this here, or at least clearly out line the steps, 1, 2 ...etc.

[Johnny5]

Please show this here, or at least clearly out line the steps, 1, 2 ...etc.

You can find the proof at the following link, post 79.



If the speed of light is constant in any inertial frame then Lorentz contraction formula is true

[funkstar]

First order logic has plenty of sites, first order logic involves exactly one domain of discourse, and the existential quantifier is translated as, "there is at least one."

General order logic is the natural extension of first order to logic to multiple domains of discourse, involving translations such as

"at least one"
"at least two"
"at least three"

Etcetera.

You simply subscript the existential quantifier with the natural number you need it to be translated as.

Spatiotemporal logic has plenty of hits.

Modal logic has plenty of hits.

Binary logic has plenty of hits.

Put them all together and you can access the advanced language.

Perhaps try "first order temporal modal" see what comes up

Or "first order spatiotemporal" and see what comes up.

Try all possible combinations, and see what you find.

One additional note. The existential quantifier cannot be translated as "there exists" when using General order logic, because existence always refers to the current moment in time.

Eg. Aristotle does not exist.

Translating the existential quantifier as "there is at least one" indicates that set theory is being used.

Consider the meaning of the following two sentences side by side:

There exists a man.

There is at least one man.

The first sentence does not use the verb 'is,' yet the meaning of existence indicates the present tense, and so the statement is true.

The second sentence does use the verb 'is' but not in the sense of 'present' tense, but rather in the sense of 'elementhood' of set theory.

So at the first moment in time, there was an element in the set M, where M denotes the set of men who will exist at some moment in time.

M is not a function of time.

On the otherhand, let M(t) denote the set of men who currently exist. The previous set is a function of time.

If you didn't quite follow, that's ok. Just translate the existential quantifier as "there is at least one" and know what the domains of discourse are.

First order logic is not different from second order logic because it's existential quantifier lists only variable, but because it doesn't allow quantification over predicates.

For instance, the "at least two" quantifier is expressible in first order logic with equality as

Ex.Ey. P(x) and P(y) and x != y.

Nothing whatsoever second order about that.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you abandon that high school philosophy course as your basis, and do some actual studying.

[Johnny5]

First order logic is not different from second order logic because it's existential quantifier lists only variable, but because it doesn't allow quantification over predicates.

I didn't say that first order logic is different from second order logic because it's existential quantifier lists only one variable. If you go back and read more carefully, I said that first order logic uses one domain of discourse, whereas second order logic uses two.

For instance, the "at least two" quantifier is expressible in first order logic with equality as

Ex.Ey. P(x) and P(y) and x != y.

Nothing whatsoever second order about that.

So what? Using the symbolism I've laid out, I can express using just a few symbols, what would take you all day to write like that.

I mean, having both the universal and existential quantifier already introduces redundancy into logic, but there's nothing wrong with that. The point of the redundancy, is to lessen the amount of symbols required to express something. Which is my whole point, the one you can't understand.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you abandon that high school philosophy course as your basis, and do some actual studying.

I sure do know what I'm talking about. The problem is that you don't know what I'm talking about.

[funkstar]

You can find the proof at the following link, post 79.



If the speed of light is constant in any inertial frame then Lorentz contraction formula is true

Permanently banned. Can't fathom why that would be.

[Johnny5]

Permanently banned. Can't fathom why that would be.

Neither could I. The person "Phi for all" read things into my posts with Matt Grime that just weren't there.

I wanted to learn more about Quaternions from Matt Grime, and "Phi for all" put an end to that, because again, he read things into my posts that weren't there.

And another problem he has, is that he cannot understand what sarcasm is. In fact, if I weren't anonymous, I would sue them. They are now posting about how terrible I was, when in fact, I was only there to learn, and have fun.

What I've concluded is that the people that run "physicsforums" and "scienceforums" don't want to look like they don't know something.

To be honest, at this point I could care less.

[Billy T]

To Johnny5:

"....the speed of light is constant in any inertial frame then Lorentz contraction formula is true"

I was not asking for proof that constant speed of light is consistent with Lorentz contraction. I believe both the constancy of light speed and the Lorentz contraction both (infact all of SRT) follows from only the assumption that: "Physics is the same for all inertial frame observers" (provided one accepts the simple laws of algebra and that Maxwell's equations are true.)

What I was asking for proof of was the continuation of your sentence, which was:

"and then arrive at contradiction. Hence, this proof overthrows SR."

I again ask, since you did not understand my concern the first time:

What contradiction? How do you "arrive at contradiciton" If you can show this then it may be true that "this proof overthrows SR," so I would be very interested in seeing you derive that "contradiction"

[Johnny5]

I was not asking for proof that constant speed of light is consistent with Lorentz contraction. I believe both the constancy of light speed and the Lorentz contraction both (infact all of SRT) follows from only the assumption that: "Physics is the same for all inertial frame observers" (provided one accepts the simple laws of algebra and that Maxwell's equations are true.)

What I was asking for proof of was the continuation of your sentence, which was: "and then arrive at contradiction. Hence, this proof overthrows SR."

I again ask, since you did not understand my concern the first time:

What contradiction? How do you "arrive at contradiciton" If you can show this then it may be true that "this proof overthrows SR," so I would be very interested in seeing you derive that "contradiction"

Well, the first post in this thread gives a clue about one method.


Assuming that the Lorentz contraction formula is correct, you can arrive at the conclusion

There is at least one moment in time x, and at least one moment in time y, such that x before y and y before x.

This contradicts truth, which is that

For any moment in time x, and any moment in time y, it is not the case that x before y and y before x.

That is the simplest method.

[funkstar]

I didn't say that first order logic is different from second order logic because it's existential quantifier lists only one variable. If you go back and read more carefully, I said that first order logic uses one domain of discourse, whereas second order logic uses two.

Humbug. You said that "general order" logic involved things such a "at least two... three..." and and it is certainly implied that such constructs are second and third order logic. They're not.

So what? Using the symbolism I've laid out, I can express using just a few symbols, what would take you all day to write like that.

Yet more humbug. Notation is not strength. And there is nothing second (or higher) order about E_2, E_3 etc.

I mean, having both the universal and existential quantifier already introduces redundancy into logic, but there's nothing wrong with that.

As does having multiple logic operators. I don't care. You're not squirming out of this one.

The point of the redundancy, is to lessen the amount of symbols required to express something. Which is my whole point, the one you can't understand.

Ever more humbug. You can introduce as many symbols as you want. That still doesn't change the order of the logic. Also, redundancy introduces symbols, so you're apparently concerned with the syntactic size. Nobody cares about that.

I sure do know what I'm talking about. The problem is that you don't know what I'm talking about.

Then educate me. Apparently I didn't learn anything at all those university courses on mathematical logic... (Have you read Mendelson?)

[Johnny5]

Humbug. You said that "general order" logic involved things such a "at least two... three..." and and it is certainly implied that such constructs are second and third order logic. They're not.

Yet more humbug. Notation is not strength. And there is nothing second (or higher) order about E_2, E_3 etc.

As does having multiple logic operators. I don't care. You're not squirming out of this one.

Ever more humbug. You can introduce as many symbols as you want. That still doesn't change the order of the logic. Also, redundancy introduces symbols, so you're apparently concerned with the syntactic size. Nobody cares about that.

Then educate me. Apparently I didn't learn anything at all those university courses on mathematical logic... (Have you read Mendelson?)

Look, i don't know who you are, and I could care less about what 'university' you went to. You have way too many comments in your post there, for me to sift through.

If you can formulate a decent question, I'll answer it.

[funkstar]

If you can formulate a decent question, I'll answer it.

I highly doubt it. But anyway:

What is "General Order Spatiotemporal Modal Binary Logic"?

Your previous answer was incomprehensible, which is why I repeat the question.

[cato]

Assuming that the Lorentz contraction formula is correct, you can arrive at the conclusion

There is at least one moment in time x, and at least one moment in time y, such that x before y and y before x.

This contradicts truth, which is that

For any moment in time x, and any moment in time y, it is not the case that x before y and y before x.

could you please elaborate. if the constancy of the speed of light is no problem to your proof, I would ask you to please repeat the whole proof. however, in your new proof, please leave the speed of light c in all frames.

if the proof is truly correct, then it should be important enough to set aside your argument and write a detailed explanation.