A thread about Jack's capacity to discuss relativity

Moderator note: This thread has been split from the following thread:

[thread=100082]Pi[/thread].

To get to the relativity stuff, you'll need to read several pages debating Jack's educational qualifications etc. first, but there may be more interesting discussion further down.
-----

Well AN, I would assume you could crack the twins contradiction I proposed.
Oh, well.

Anyway, I do not think I can cause a contradiction in ZFC since it is based on sets.

But, SR is a differerent matter.

And, instead of all this, I would assume you could stop my advance on SR.

Oh well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can defend my claims.
I do not need pages and pages of language to do it.

Anyway, I will certainly entertain any refutation of my logic if you have it.

Trouble is, I have not ever seen said refutation from you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh so if I realise that its pointless tyo engage you in discussion because not only do not you know you don't want to know then suddenly its a victory for you? Yes, congratulations, your sheer ignorance and self delusion have beaten me into submission.

Most would consider that a pyrrhic victory.

I'll say again that I'm willing to put 1000 of whatever your local currency is on the table, along side the same amount from you, and you submit your work to a reputable journal. If you get rejected, I get your money and vice versa if you get published.

The fact you consistently avoid taking up this challenge, which is effectively free money if you are right in your self belief, suggests you're all talk.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL, I would assume you could produce a math proof.

Who is interersted in an SR opinion?

I supplied pure math. It will take pure math to break it. Except it cannot be done. It forced SR into a contradiction. I made that clear. If it is not correct, it should be easy to supply the math to prove that.

Then, naturally, you can point to that math post and it will be so clear everyone will understand you found a math error. Othewise, at this point SR stands contradicted.

 

You always post as if you firmly believe you have a perfect grasp of mathematics and physics and that its impossible that you could be wrong. Obviously you don't learn from experience.

The fact of the matter is your grasp of the mathematics and the physical implications is pretty poor. I had to walk you through the equations for spheres! And this is despite you claiming to have taught vector calculus to undergrads! Obviously you didn't cover the heady topic of circles during that course. The system you talk about is symmetric, if you boost such that one sphere is stationary it'll play out the same as if you boosted such that the other sphere is stationary, up to a parity change. This is what was seen when I went through the maths. The 'discovery' that event A happens in Frame A at t=T has partner event B in Frame B which happens at time t'=T is not a discovery at all, its something which could be seen from the outset given the symmetric system. You have 2 events in 2 different points in space and time which, in particular different frames, have the same elapsed time since some third event. This is not shocking or new or even unexpected.

You believe its some contradiction because, as you have demonstrated many times on many subjects, you have a poor grasp of the relevant material.

I can't help but notice that you ignored my bet. Can't you put your money where your mouth is? I have zero fear that you'll be published because, as I've explained, you're wrong. You've called me 'too primitive' so if you think I'm not intelligent enough to grasp your work or special relativity take me out of the equation and submit your work to a journal.

What's the matter? Are you all talk and when someone actually tells you to put up or shut up suddenly you're not so confident? The fact you're asking Pete in another thrread how to do a Lorentz transformation would suggest you know you're not very good at this stuff and yet you proclaim yourself the first person to have noticed a mistake in what is essentially a homework problem. If you truely believe you're right you must believe that every single maths and physics student for the last century has done precisely the same algebraic mistake and missed the result you claim. The fact you aren't sure how to do the algebra doesn't seem to register with you. You throw around words like 'decidable' and 'transfinite' in this threaf but you've been shown to be ignorant of those too.

If I had to guess I'd say you were someone who was around a B student in high school but who thinks a lot more of himself. Since then you've looked at a few books and picked up buzzwords but you've never really understood what you're reading, hence the constant misuse of terms in your posts. But since you haven't had to sit an exam you have managed to convince yourself you're good at relativity or logic and set theory and when people who have sat and passed exams on them correct you you now struggle to accept you have a very poor understanding. Your claim you've taught vector calculus I don't believe for a second, given your poor grasp of even basic coordinate geometry.

 

Point goes to Alpha.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, I do mind and won't be sharing that with you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yea, I thought so.

Personally, I do not mind sharing with folks what I do since I have no intellectual fear. For example, I do not view you as any type of intellectual threat.

You and I are different.

 

OK, you have that right.

I did not take that bet.

It is based on the fact I do not see physics folks as willing to use logic and proof.

Group think is very powerful.

I am trying to find ways to inject logic. I am not there yet.

 

Yes, we are very different. I know very little about you at all save that you are not rational in what you post nor logical in your reasoning, though you enjoy arguing a lot. Your casual lack of honesty concerns me a bit, so I will keep my cards close to the vest, as it were, and you have not shared anything with me beyond this discussion so your above statement lacks merit.

As for intellect....you seem to consider intelligence as some men consider penis length - a means to feel superior to another in some way. That does not fit in my world view, though I am clear that there is no point in discussing that with you either as you have made your mind up already and are not open to reason.

My point, exactly.

Understand that this is your loss, you are not taking advantage of what is before you, choosing instead to continue to try and bolster your ego at the cost of believability.

We are all just words on the screen here, there should be no 'threat' in that, intellectual or otherwise. It is unfortunate for you that you perceive it thus.

 

Ah the perfect excuse, "I would say but you wouldn't believe me even if I told you". I've heard a few theists use that line when it comes to evidence for God.

It means you never have to put your work where your mouth is because of some invisible conspiracy. It's not that you're ignorant and delusion, it's everyone else. Sure it is..... sure.

It's also funny you complain that the physics community wouldn't be rational and honest when you have flat out lied to plenty of people here. You said you'd taught undergraduates vector calculus. That's obviously a lie. You said it simply to try and retort my comment that I've taught undergraduates special relativity. Unlike you I have. Unlike you I can put my maths where my mouth is. Unlike you I don't need to lie about my knowledge and ability. So you complaining about how the community wouldn't accept the 'truth' of your work is pure hypocrisy. You really don't realise just how stereotypical your behaviour and attitude is in relation to other cranks. Almost invariably other cranks say the same things. You're not special, you're another hack who can't accept mediocrity. And no, I'm not claiming I'm not mediocre. I know people who are better than me in everything I might consider myself half decent at. Maths, physics, sports, women. Most people realise this fairly early in life. Cranks can't seem to accept that 99.9999% of us ]are just another face in the crowd.

I think you've got to find logic before you can inject it anywhere.

 

Yes, we are very different. I know very little about you at all save that you are not rational in what you post nor logical in your reasoning

If I am illogical, you can provide math and logic proofs against me.

You cannot.

 

You said you'd taught undergraduates vector calculus.

I said I taught undergraduate calculus, UW Madison.

And you are calling me a liar.

That is simply an indication of your intelligence.

 

I'm calling it as I see it. For someone who supposedly has been in some kind of physics or mathematics postgraduate scheme, as generally required to then teach undergraduates, you are unfamiliar with geometry, logic, you keep misusing the word 'proof' when you mean 'argument' or 'justification', you're utterly unfamiliar with group theory and its relation to geometry and you don't understand the results and implications of what amounts to changes of variables and bases.

If you'd advanced into some kind of postgrad education in the area of maths or physics you'd not be as naive and deluded about your level of understanding and your abilities. I know plenty of people who believed themselves the best thing since sliced bread when they were at high school level and when they get to university its a shock to the system. And even more so for postgrad. Every single person I know who has done maths or physics to degree or beyond realises that when they get an answer different from the textbook its their fault. Yes, a few of them initially start with "The textbook is wrong" and then have the answer explained to them and their effort exposed. It might happen a few more times until they learn they aren't as good as they think and they are prone to error. You don't seem to have learnt this. Which makes me think either you lie about what you've done or the UW Madison is horrifically bad. Given the latter is not the case I'm led to think its you. You're 'that guy', the one who always has to one up someone else when telling stories. The one who diidn't do too well in school but not because he was a bit thick but because the teachers didn't grasp how far ahead of them he was.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The one who now that no one can force him to sit an exam on something is suddenly an expert on everything. And this is where you are now, proclaiming you know better than a century of all the mathematicians and physicists put together, claiming you have a result no one else has seen before when all you have is a result everyone who does relativity knows about and understands. Except you. You aren't special, you aren't a visionary, you aren't insightful. You're just yet another person who says "Oh no, it's your fault" when you get something wrong. The 'its everyone else's fault but mine' mentality. Cranks the internet over have it. And I have no problem admitting that when I was younger I had a bit of that mentality too. I rapidly lost it when I got to university. I grew up. Its a shame you haven't.

All the answers to your misunderstandings have been provided, you're just unwilling to accept them because now you've put in so much time into proclaiming yourself better than everyone. I've seen it before. A poster called Farsight proclaimed he has redone physics (Google for 'Relativity+'). Proclaimed he'd explaiined time, space, energy, gravity, light, even money and submitted a huge document to journals. He got rejected from every single one because his work was a mixture of nonsense and boring. He thought it was a revelation money is basically an IOU system. Welcome to economics 101! After spending months, if not years, proclaiming he'd be rewriting physics he found no one was impressed with his work and it was full of problems. Yet he continued and self published his work as a book. It didn't exactly fly off the shelf. And then he just stopped posting (having been on just about every physics forum there is) because he couldn't admit he was mistaken. He'd spent so much time telling people he was insightful that he had to waste his own money to self publish the book just to avoid bruising his ego.

You're not quite there yet but its precisely the same mentality. You demand people explain things to you, they do and you just refuse to listen. That doesn't mean you magically become right, it just demonstrates you're unwilling to say "I was wrong". I admitted I was wrong when I realised you and I were talking about slightly different things in the sphere intersection thing. Fortunately it did nothing to the result I was telling you, only altered which point I was considering. Being able to say "I was wrong" is essential in science. If you can't tell me the criteria by which you'd accept you were wrong you are not following the scientific methodology. I've had to bin months of work during my PhD because I was wrong.

So tell me, what (hypothetically) would it take to convince you you're wrong, that your understanding is not correct?

 

What you have not figured out is I am more intellectual than you.

As a 4.0 undergrad, I can tell you were not.

You are attempting to measure me with your yardsticks and your results are coming up false.

If you want to claim my history is false, fine.

In my view, you are not particular creative and further, I pushed my twins paradox right in your face and there is absolutely nothing you can do. For that matter, nothing I have proven here is within your grasp.

So, instead of your mesasurements of me, I would prefer to operate strictly with math proof. I cannot seem to get you there.

Let me know when you are willing to communicate completely along those lines.

Finally, you are questioning my math ability. Yet, you made the error and claimed i' != t for my point. You agreed with Einstein's false assessment that the stationary light sphere was preserved by LT and that is completely false as I showed with pictures and math. I would suggerst you learn to clear up these matters first before you make wide sweeping generailizations about me.

 

That Farsight guy thinks so too. Doesn't make him right. Pretty m much all cranks think of themselves as informed intellectuals. The proof is in the pudding.

You haven't engaged me in any topic which even comes close to the material I work with day to day.
None of your threads have needed any more knowledge and ability than a mediocre 1st year has. The fact the topics you discuss are not particularly advanced doesn't mean those providing the discussion are at that level. Feel free to look at some of the threads I've started over in the physics subforum and you'll see just how low the level of discourse you stimulate in anyone really is.

You have repeately given the distinct impression you believe that when people provide you with algebraic workings that they 'only just worked it out'. It says a lot about your naivety of people's ability. If you wish to discuss more advanced topics I'm all ears. Don't blame me for the poor quality of discussions you stimulate.

Can you provide me with a link to a post of yours where you demonstrate correct working knowledge of any material which is considered 4th year level at a decent university. I measure you against what I expect a decent physics or maths student to know and be capable of. Not me, not at a top university, just a half decent student in a middling to good university. You fall well short. If I were to use myself as a yardstick against you the result is even worse for you.

I see no evidence to believe it to be true and plenty of evidence to believe it to be false.

Good strawman. Why is it when cranks can't get basic bookwork understanding they trot out the "You're not creative" to anyone who corrects them. If you'd said 2+2=5 then its not a sign of a lack of creativity to say "No, this statement is not factual". Explaining basic 1st year relativity to you doesn't require creativity because you're getting the basics wrong. I am not trying to be creative here.

The only way you can measure in any justified way my creativity is to see and examine my research. You haven't seen it so you have no justification for your claim.

There's nothing I can do to make you understand, that is true. The basic relativity I do understand. But what would all those people who tested me with exams and peer reviewed my research be compared to you, when it comes to evaluating my abilities?

Pete and I have been through it with you again and again. I have done something about it but the problem is you don't want to admit you're mistaken. I've repeatedly said I'll help you get it to peer review and put money on the table. You run away.

Still don't know the meaning of the word 'proof'. Buy a dictionary. You've been provided with calculus, explanations and pictures and you've ignored them all. You then do so far as to claim people haven't provided you with them. Denial is not an argument.

I let you know weeks ago, when I did it.

The fact you can't even use the word 'proof' in the correct context is pretty damning. I haven't seen you do any mathematics beyond 1st year stuff. As I said, go do a search for threads I've started in the physics subforum. You'll see a big difference.

And you continue to lie. I explained the subtle difference between two events having, in different coordinates, occurred after the same length of time and saying t=t'. Saying I claimed that for the events in question that the relevant observers didn't measure the same elapsed time is a lie. I have repeatedly explained that symmetric arguments lead to the conclusion immediately. You continue to paraphrase me to the point of you becoming a liar. If all you can do is make up lies, ignore people's responses and refuse to submit your work to review by a journal then you have no argument. You're entire argument boils down to "Because I say so and I don't like it!".

The light sphere is preserved. I've demonstrated it from the definition of Lorentz transformations. Your picture actually proves it, the light cone is mapped to itself. The fact concentric spheres within the light sphere are not mapped to concentric spheres is not a contradiction. I even explained it was the case before you posted your picture. I even posted a picture myself demonstrating how point distributions change. You claim I don't understand this stuff yet I said what you were going to say before you said it and I explained why its not a contradiction. You simply provided the same results and then assume a different conclusion.

I have not seen you do any mathematics I wouldn't expect one of my 1st years to know, I have seen you make numerous incorrect statements about logic and set theory (this thread) and relativity in other threads.

If you've done valid mathematics or physics beyond that level on this forum then post a link. If all you've got is denial of answers anyone reading your threads will know to exist and a refusal to submit to peer review then its clear you're a hack. And its ironic you bitch about me making 'wide sweeping generailizations' about you when you do precisely that to me. You claim my posts make it obvious to you I'm not a 4.0 student. Why is it okay for you to say that about me but not for me to say about you I feel you're a mediocre student at best? Nice hypocrisy.

If you refuse to submit your supposed 'math proof' of SR being wrong then you shouldn't expect people to repeatedly spoon feed you physics. You demand Pete and I review your work but you avoid brining your work to the attention of actual physicists. If I'm 'too primitive' and I've not understood any of your work and I'm a rubbish student then why are you demanding I evaluate your work? You clearly won't accept anything anyone says to you so whether I do so or not its immaterial to what you say or how you act. If you really believe I don't understand relativity then surely any critique of make of your work is worthless anyway? So why ask? It would seem you just want attention on these forums. Else you'd be submitting your work to journals. You want attention from Pete and I so you can pretend to yourself you're doing physics. With us you can just ignore us and keep posting nonsense. With a journal you have no come back, you don't have an audience to play to. If you get rejected from a journal you have no come back, its tough shit. You want to be seen to be doing relativity, that's the important thing to you. Even if you're wrong.

 

Bottom line, I provide proofs you cannot refute.

You say you do but never do.

That is the way you are.

 

You know, I have given you two specific examples like the twins thread, in which you flamed around and failed to handle.

That was not the only one.

Why don't you and I go at it on the tinws thread with the twins experiment.

You puff your cheeks out and carry on, but refuse to debate me in mathematical proof.

Why is that?

You will note, I have zero fear in that world.

But, you choose to ramble on in the talk talk world.


Anyway, folks here smell fear.

Let's debate in pure proof theory and my twins thread.

 

This is just more e - penis flexing...'my dick is bigger than your dick'..., but it is just that and nothing more - you have no 'maths' to back it up.

*yawn* Couldn't you do better than this? At least vary your tirade a bit, make it more interesting and funny, maybe throw in a few pictures or something.......

 

I'll have the Apple Pie please.

 

Yea,
come operate on this problem.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=99729

There is math here.

Like everyone else, you will fail. It forces SR into submission.

:xctd: