On the Definition of an Inertial Frame of Reference

Ah, still clinging to the only good thing anyone has said about your work, that my comment about it wasn't correct. And this has advanced it beyond its previous position of utter rejection by everyone in the scientific community you've presented it to..... how?

And since then 'Sir Knight' has pretty much fallen on his own sword half a dozen times, you've just been the side attraction. I suppose it must make a change, being the lesser of two hacks in a thread.

Let us all know when you manage to get anywhere with anything you do. :wave:

As I repeatedly linked to, you originally said nothing about particular kinds of transform.

Are you even reading my posts? I replied to that. I guess you don't know what 'representations' are. I'm more than familiar with the \(SL(2,\mathbb{C})\) representation of Lorentz transforms, they form the basis of much of supersymmetry. But that's another thing you're likely to be unfamiliar with.

You didn't mention specific representations, you made a general statement. This has been your problem all along, you fail to realise what you're reading are about specific instances. Chrisoffel symbols vanish in a given coordinate system if the curvature tensor is zero. The Lorentz transforms satisfy \(LL^{\top}=I\) in a specific representation. Not their standard one. Only some Jacobians satisfy \(JJ^{\top}=I\), not all of them.

I am seriously wondering if you're just really really desperate or really really thick. I ask you questions, you ignore them (particularly when they involve explicit demonstrations you're incorrect again) yet you bleat on about a challenge you threw down and which no one was interested in doing.

I asked you, do you think that Guest przyk and I can't do basic vector calculus and coordinates and tensors? We've been running circles around you all through this thread. If you're Trout from PhysOrg then you and I have known one another for in excess of something like 4 years, you're well aware I can do basic vector calculus. Feel free to search for threads I've started on these forums, they are typically a little more advanced than the average one. The fact you didn't answer my question on whether or not you think we can do this stuff suggests you think we can you just don't want to admit it.

No one has bought your blustering. Guest has provided a detailed link by link categorisation of your mistakes, errors, misconceptions, refusals to be corrected, back peddling, attempts to 'revise history' and to claim you said one thing when really you said another. If you had any sense you'd keep your trap shut now, the whole "But what about my challenge!" is so laughable transparent a diversion its just an embarrassment for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't underestimate yourself ghost. You attacked me and my paper with incredible disgust. The key to the event obviously parallels the rage that a fanatical Mullah must feel whenever he notices that an infidel has written unanswerable arguments against Islam and Muhammad.

There are always worldly wise persons (like Guest) that have kept quiet knowing that there are many fanatical Mullahs like you that are just itching to get busy with a little head-chopping.

One billion misguided Muslims proves what?

I agree that I do not appear center stage in the Monty Python parable. I represent the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your work couldn't illicit that strong an emotion, its not that interesting.

You need to stop kidding yourself about how important people view your work.

According to brucep you've been pushing this stuff for years. You've had plenty of people retort your claims and yet you continue to repeat them. I think the role of the person with fanatical faith here is being played by you. And just like my actual views for religions, my view of your work is not one of fear or trepidation.

I asked you before but you haven't given a straight answer. What journals, reputable ones, have you submitted your work to and when did you do it? Any work, doesn't have to specifically be the document this thread began about, any research due to you. What did they say? How did you develop your work based on their responses? How many of them accepted your work for publication?

Except science is, by definition, something which involves testing, rigour, there is something measurable which can be examined. Religions have nothing of these things.

Is this all you can do? Resort to religious analogies (though you get your role wrong), simply make up exaggerated descriptions of what you think other people's views are and make Monty Python references.

If you had sound rational ground on which you present your claims you'd not need to do any of that. Guest, myself and przyk didn't slap down Tach by using those tactics, we did it by knowing our shit about physics. That is not to say we didn't throw in the occasional (or regular) insult but without the physics the insults are hollow and all you seem to be providing is your own twisted views on what you hope other people think. You describe my view of your work as 'disgust'. Some cranks have illicit disgust from me but it takes a lot. If all it took to give me a feeling of disgust was work like yours I'd be in an almost permanent state of disgust when on physics forums, cranks like you are 10 a penny. You just happen to have been peddling the same nonsense for longer than most.

You and your work aren't disgusting, but laughable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You had your chance to be scientific but you let your guard down and let Sir Knight defeat you utterly. Admit it. You fight with your eyes closed and that makes Sir Knight a better scientist than you.

It's all I have to do. Everyone can plainly see that you have no legitimate rebuttal.

The joke, of course, is on those who believe that linear spacetime transformations are a requirement of the homogeneity and isotropy of space and time.

 

'Utterly'? Did you stop reading the rest of the thread? 'Sir Knight' has had his mistakes explicitly demonstrated by myself and others again and again. I think you should look up what 'utterly' means because you obviously don't know how to use it properly.

If Tach is who Guest has said he is then I am demonstrably a better scientist than him. My work in the mathematical structures coordinates can have, yes I actually have research in that, has been published. Tach is banned from editing Wikipedia because he'd link to his own unpublished debunked work, even after told not to.

I am paid to do research. The people who interviewed and then employed me all have doctorates in the sciences, as do all the people I work with. As do I. Unlike you and Tach I don't need edit Wikipedia or post my work on forums to try to fake a scientific contribution, I actually make them and I get financially rewarded as such.

Its all you think you have to do. Or perhaps its all you're capable of?

Who said that? There's tons of complicated coordinate space-time transformations which are not linear in the coordinates and which get used in GR, including in such things as the FRW metric.

Linear transformations have a lot of nice properties but if you think no one considered non-linear transformations then you are either very naive and thus have not done any reading about relativity or you have done the reading, you know that's not the case and you're simply a liar.

And do you think I wouldn't notice you didn't answer my question about what journals said about your work? Don't want to admit you've had plenty of retorts and rebuttals of your work from people who you can't ignore the scientific abilities of? If you've got nothing to hide, why do you keep avoiding my question? Journal comments are an essential part of anyone's research, any competent scientist will be able to give instances where comments from journals have been extremely useful. And unlike Tach's attempt to write 'articles' on relativistic theories the feedback I got from journals I took on board, updated the papers and got published.

Might I suggest in future you don't play the "Whose the better scientist!" game, even when between two other people. You've got zero contributions to science and your silence on what journals have said suggests you have little intellectual honesty about your work.

 

Sir Knight is virtually indestructible because of his incredibly dense skull and lack of mathematical training. But that dullard understood what you could not. That makes you utterly pathetic.

 

Ah, that the best you could come up with? The "He's a better scientist" didn't stick. The "You've been utterly defeated" didn't stick. The religious analogies backfired. And now you've done past just making up what you think other people feel or think but just gone to flat out ad homs.

Your continued silence on what journals you've sent your work to, what they said and what you did as a result says a lot. Its a little rich you call me pathetic when you're unwilling to be intellectually honest about your own work.

As I said before, I'm more a scientist than either of you and no matter how many Monty Python references you make or how many opinions you make up or even how many times you ignore my direct questions, that isn't going to change any time soon. Hell, seeing as you're going nowhere at present even if I got hit by a bus tomorrow I don't think it'll change ever.

/edit

And your silence on my comment about non-linear coordinate transforms in isotropic homogeneous systems in relativity is yet another illustration of your hypocrisy in calling me 'pathetic'. If you can't acknowledge you were mistaken in such a simple point then you demonstrate the sort of behaviour which has been said about you, ie ignoring mistakes in your claims for many years.

/edit again

And having just done a quick Google for your name and 'relativity' it appears you're a 7 day adventist. Shouldn't you be winding your neck in a little bit with regards to the religion analogies?

 

The record is a compelling argument that you are guilty of willful stupidity. Give it some time. I don't believe that there's a limit to how contemptible you can be.

 

My my, you do like your strong adjectives. Disgusting, contemptible, utterly pathetic.

And wilful stupidity implies I lost something for not reading your work with much care. Tach paid more attention and he still doesn't think its valid. And I'd been pre-informed that you've been peddling your stuff for years and you ignore any criticism or comments, which makes your accusation of 'wilful stupidity' a touch hypocritical.

I can't help but feel your use of strong adjectives is a sign of something. Frustration no one hails you as the physics/maths whiz you believe yourself to be? Or perhaps you don't like me bringing up journals and all the rejections and criticisms they obviously gave you (else you'd have answered my question)?

You won't answer a simple short question, yet you whine I didn't spend longer than that reading your document. If your work had merit enough to read then you'd have no problem answering my question about journal submissions. If you can't be honest enough to say how previous work of yours was viewed then why should anyone give any future work any time? There's nothing wrong with a journal rejection, happens to many people. Some of the biggest names in theoretical physics have had papers rejected, like Witten and Hawking. Rejections help your research if you're honest. If your old work from years ago (for which rebuttals can be found online with ease) was rejected and you're too intellectually dishonest to even acknowledge that then it raises the question why anyone should give your new work any time. You want to be taken seriously and have people put in time and effort to go through your work properly? That's what journals are for.

If you're unwilling to pay attention to what journals, whose business it is to evaluate work, have to say and can't even admit honestly what they said then why do you expect people to put in their time to treat your work properly now? You can't simultaneously demand people follow the scientific methodology while pissing on one of the pillars of science. Its hypocritical, intellectually dishonest and yes, even a bit contemptible (oh no, a stronger emotion!).

But hey, its no skin off my nose if you won't answer my question about journals. Whether I read your document or not, whether I think its the best thing since sliced bread or not, you obviously have issues with peer review and the due process of scientific work and until you get over that you're just going to get nowhere. You know, like you've been doing for around a decade now. A decade ago I didn't know calculus and I'd never even heard of a metric. Clearly I went my scientific pursuits a little more wisely than you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No. I believe it's clear that you are striving to be intentionally contemptible.

 

Tell you what, since you're obviously cheesed I dared not give you the full attention you think you deserve because I thought your ability to accept and learn from mistakes likely to be low how about I give you an opportunity to demonstrate to us all how you've learnt things on the many years you've been doing your 'work'? That way you can show, in some small way, you at least are capable of it.

7 years ago you posted this thread. You didn't get an answer, though you provided your 'physical interpretation' on it. Clearly at the time you didn't understand the relevant mathematics because such a space-time metric is not mathematically possible. Now, 7 years later and hopefully 7 years wiser, perhaps you know enough about metrics to know why that particular one isn't mathematically possible?

Only really needs a 2 line response, if you're precise with your use of terminology, so you don't need to spend much time on it. It'd be an opportunity for you to show you've learnt things relevant to your work over the years. And all without having to say anything about any journal criticisms as you're obviously unwilling to do that, even though refusing to even acknowledge my question kind of robs you of the 'moral high ground' in the discussion. The best way to get it back somewhat would be to be open and honest about your interactions with journals. If you have taken on board their comments and used them to refine your work and not just ignored all of them while yelling about conspiracies then you've got nothing to hide. Right?

Anyway, I have to sleep now.

 

Well here is the problem I believe.

"The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the fact that it moves without acceleration."-Einstein

Does he imply this this thing called inertia does not ever move? It is always in equilibrium with its surroundings. Possibly that it is the surroundings themselves in any equation that determines the relative position, speed, or velocity of the inertial object. Also that the object itself is always part of another larger frame of reference. So IMO it is not the circular spin of the object itself, but inertia is always the outward cause to the spin emanated by the surroundings as well as defined in the center of the object itself. Still the uncontrollable spin is always present from the outside observer.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

Thanks for the reference. That's about the most inarticulate statement by Einstein that I have ever read.

 

What? So you have a calculation for the spin of a Lie Group in reality. Lets see your proof oh master of velocity!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh! Lawdy Momma. Hilarious.

 

A Christmas BUMP!

Will this guy ever stop digging!

Again, I'm more than happy for you to quote, verbatim, the section of the book and I'll explain to you (again) that you don't understand it.

As has been explained to you, about 1,000,000 times now, that general covariance is the property of equations retaining their form under arbitrary coordinate changes. Let's see how your objections have evolved over the thread...

• First you didn't understand what tensors are.
• Then it was your claim: tensor transformation laws only hold for linear changes of coordinates .
• Then AGAIN it was that you thought tensor transformation laws only hold of linear changes of coordinates.
• Then it was because you thought Lorentz covariance and General covariance were the same thing.
• Then it was because you thought his coordinates were too complicated.
• Then it was because you had trouble differentiating his coordinates.
• Then it was my personal favourite: that "you get partial derivatives with respect to f".
• Then it went back to "but his coordinate functions are nonlinear!" again.
• Then it was because of "implicit functions", as if they're some terribly complicated thing.
• More objections to implicit functions.
• Then it was more trouble with the chain rule and "derivatives of S with respect to itself".
• Then it was the famous "covariant and partial derivatives coincide on flat space" gem.
• You then continued with the "covariant and partial derivatives coincide on flat space" objection, deciding that polar coordinates aren't a good enough counter example for you.
• Then it was because you couldn't calculate the relevant g_{ij} for the coordinate change.
• Then you drop that and return to a confusion between Lorentz covariance and general covariance.
• You continue with the confusion between Lorentz covariance and general covariance and use this confusion as your objection.
• You continue with this confusion.
• Then we go back to your objection based on the fact you couldn't calculate g_{ij}.

Then you got banned. So you went away and one would hope you spent this time reading a little about the various topics you've made elementary errors on. I think you (hopefully) realised that you made a fool of yourself with regards Tensor transformation laws and linear changes of coordinates, so on return you had a new objection...

• Now you claim the coordinates are degenerate.
• You also have a new objection that the Jacobian matrix should be orthogonal.
• Remarkably, during all that time you didn't realise how stupid your Christoffel symbols claim was, so also reverted back to that objection.

This is where we all had to give you endless explanations of why your "Christoffel symbols vanish" claim was stupid, but you continued to make a fool of yourself whilst beating your chest at the same time (which was priceless by the way). Even after Prometheus very kindly did an explicit calculation for you, you still couldn't see your error and continued to beat your chest. Finally, after much trying and having me explain to you a basic result, you did finally see your error (but of course you didn't admit to it). So this feels like it's time for you to change your objections again...

• Now it's because we're doing things on flat space.
• Then you were desperate to end the conversation, having realised you'd made a complete fool of yourself.
• But the humility was too much so you foolishly reaffirmed your position on the notion of general covariance.
• You return again to "can't do it in flat space" and "the coordinates are degenerate".
• You really push the degenerate coordinates thing quite hard, indicating that you hadn't actually managed to compute the determinant of the Jacobian yourself!

Again, one of the highlights of the thread came about. With a proud beating of your chest, you cling to the degenerate coordinate claim. Here's come the LOUD NOISES...

Tach: there is no way in hell that the jacobian has a determinant equal to 1
Przyk Response 1: Proof it's equal to 1.

Tach: You bought Shubert's claim on the decomposition. The claim is FALSE.
Przyk Response 2: Proof the claim is TRUE. (see, I can use capital letters too!)

So we all know what's coming next, right? You guessed it! Tach now moves onto a new objection:

• You have a problem with coordinate replacement! Claiming g_ij=g_ij(x,x').
• The whole Jacobian thing is dropped and now it really is about you not understanding that x'=x'(x,t) means f(x')=f(x'(x,t)) is a function of (x,t).
• Again you push with the embarrassing failure to replace x' with x'(x,t).
• And for some unknown reason return to your claim that Jacobian must be orthogonal.
• You reaffirm you position on this false claim, but citing a book you have previously demonstrated you do not understand.
• Continue to cite alleged result, but refuse to post the result you are referring to.
• Because you realise you're drowning, you desperately try to swing attention away from yourself by posting challenges.
• Again, refuses to post the cited result, presumably because you're terrified that you've misunderstood it.
• You start referring back to my post (now seemingly not disagreeing with it), and hope that everyone forgets what's just happened.
• And now you're trying to separate yourself even more from the tirade of mistake you've made, by posting more challenges!

I thought a little more about my previous comment in regards projection, and I think they're accurate. Tach has continued to over use words such as idiot, crank, crackpot, pretender and so on. But these are the exact same words people have used to describe him (e.g. here and here). Being wrong, for him, cuts much deeper than it does for others, because he feels it would increase the accuracy of the aforementioned labels. And he seems to be the same on all the places he joins. He makes elementary mistakes, gets called on it and then spends his time beating his chest, calling people names and insisting that he's wrong and that everyone else is at fault.

 

From page 1:

What are you even talking about? The laws of physics are the same at every point of \(\Xi\) regardless of the time. In principle, you can parametrize space and time using any coordinates you want. You said that the only restriction is that coordinates should faithfully represent the topology of space-time. Obviously every topology is invariant with respect to continuous reparameterizations.