Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by rpenner, Aug 29, 2015.
It would be more correct to say that you got it by misinterpreting my paper.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Nobody but you thinks that.
I find it hard to believe that I'm the only person that understands my derivation and the correct way to use it. Indisputably, time dilation is derived in the paper from my nonlinear equations and the accepted result is obtained.
The fault lies between your screen and chair. There is not science class on the Earth that teaches from your papers, nor a single peer-reviewed article which is based on citing them in positive fashion. The evidence that they are just the ramblings of someone convinced of his own genius is all around you.
Wrong. You need to stop asserting. If you wish to convince people, start forming a coherent fact-based argument. Of course, at a minimum, you would have to do better than your August 2015 paper.
I remember Theodore Frankel complaining about a mathematical paper written by Élie Cartan, claiming that it can't be understood by mortals.
You gravely overestimate the mathematical content of the 2015 paper.
If you want to challenge my understanding then raise a fact-supported claim either here or following the protocol of the formal debate rules. Anything less is trolling and baseless self-promotion.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please give me a hint by posting a link.
This is your thread so it's up to you to defend your trolling and baseless self-promotion.
Sorry, your 2013 paper "The Quintessence of Axiomatized Special Relativity Theory" which is linked in post #1 — post #20.
It's copied from where you introduced it in http://sciforums.com/posts/3324487 in August 2015.
I've made my detailed explanation in posts #1-#7. The criticisms are based in standards of scholarship, intellectual honesty, intellectual rigor, English, math and physics. But if you don't have a complaint you can articulate, I can hardly make a specific response.
My rebuttal to your misrepresentation: look up the word honesty.
Not a rebuttal. A rebuttal would be to quote the basis for that assertion. Here are the entire first two paragraphs:
Albert Einstein made a simple yet significant contribution in physics by recognizing the key ideas in the original relativity theory of Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz, by dismissing the very complicated objectives of that theory and by only expounding on the easier and immediate consequences of the essential ideas. While Einstein’s simplification of the overly-ambitious relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz was a noteworthy achievement, Einstein’s synthesis was based on a very strange foundation, a seemingly impenetrable riddle. For that reason, to this day, most conceptualizations of special relativity are primarily anecdotal. That is a sufficient reason to rethink traditional explanations. The aim of The Quintessence of Axiomatized Special Relativity is to remove from Einstein’s relativity theory everything that is confused, unnecessary and not amenable to experimental verification.
The most glaring misconception in relativity theory is the belief that nature requires linearity for the space and time transformation equations between inertial frames of reference. That mystifying, nonsensical, conceptual riddle, which began with Einstein, has been perpetuated by adoring physicists ever since. It should be dispensed with immediately. If spacetime is defined intuitively, tangibly, with minimal restrictions, then nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations arise naturally.Source: "The Quintessence of Axiomatized Special Relativity Theory" (December 6, 2013), page 1
The "riddle" was not in this paragraph defined or sourced to how it was a basis of Einstein's work or how that work was a synthesis. Neither is there a nearby reference to a citation where those topics are explored. Also, you truncated my quotation unfairly in an attempt to ignore that I already found the other use of the term riddle, used to explore a subject no physicist would find puzzling.
Moreover, as the expanded quote of my August 29, 2015 post reads, you call the fact that the Lorentz transforms are linear a "riddle" that originates with Einstein, but I call you to task for that untruth that goes straight to your noncomprehension of Einstein's 1905 papers. In short, Special Relativity uses linear transforms because Newton defined inertial motion as a linear relation between change in position and elapsed "time". A non-linear transform can preserve this relation for an arbitrary world-line but not for all of them.
There is no honesty in your seemingly malicious intent.
Really? It took two posts to make it clear that your complaint is about my mistaken spelling correction from 2015?
That's not malicious dishonesty. That appears to be a transcription mistake made years ago. It's in my original notes from when I worked for hours composing those posts. Neither of us noticed it for quite some time.
I'm sorry my typo while converting your printed out paper to my notes somehow got introduced and was described as your mistake. For those that doubt, the Wayback Machine shows that "impenetrable" was in the original in 2015 and confirm that generally the dates embedded in the PDF and revealed in the HTTP headers can be trusted.
Also, the spellchecker that flagged it was using a dictionary which was merely descriptive, not prescriptive. So "[sic]" might be an overreaction for a word found in large dictionaries.
Because there was no malicious intent, your backwards attempt to prick my guilty conscious failed because I never intended to introduce that mistake. It would have been better to use English statements to declare your complaint than waste time trying to convey your point psychically.
But that typo is not material to this thread or forum.
I'm amused by your confession that you didn't know how to copy and paste pdf text. And I'm confident that many recognize your reading error as being intentional.
I may have been working on a very small screen in 2015 with paper printout as I mentioned.
Completely missing the point of this thread.
I'm confident that repenner makes occasional, unintentional spelling mistakes, as I've corrected him and numerous others along those lines.
I first imagined that the purpose of this thread was to honestly critique http://everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf, which derives special relativity without presupposing linearity and convenient clock synchronizations.
My religious affiliation is that of the Confessing Millerite Adventists: http://everythingimportant.org/God
You think this of rpenner, because he misspelled a werd? Are you trying to be funny?
Do you seriously believe that rpenner trusted his own reading and typing skills above the speed and ease of copy and paste?
Separate names with a comma.