SRT and the use of relative zero?

and how were these figures of dark energy 73% and dark matter 84% arrived at....
Certainly not from what is observed as they have yet to provide evidence for either [Possibly only "hypothetical" due to your maths requiring it... sort of situation]

In other words:
How is the total mass of the universe calculated except by using math that I am suggesting may be in error due to the proposed reliance on using a relative zero. [where is E=mc^2 derived from? SRT of course]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

With all due respect the use of dark energy and matter hypothesis is not to explain what has been observed but is use to explain what HASN'T been observed... big difference.

An arguement in abstract:
As you have often posted in the past, SRT has certain limitations when working with extremes. Is it not fair to acknowledge that if one wishes to derive an universal equation that applies to all circumstances universally regardless of extremes that this limitation be taken into account.
E=mc^2 is a founded on SRT, SRT has proven to be limited in extremes, therefore E=mc^2 is also limited when used in extremes. Is this a logical statement?

When attempting to calculate the mass of an entire universe, is this not one such extreme use of SRT [ E=mc^2 ]
or would you now say with out question that SRT is has no limitations when dealing with extremes?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rather than derail this thread into another topic area I will start another thread... what do you think...? Is it worth discussing...?
with this or similar in the OP:

The missing mass problem:

reference: http://people.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/stanford/universe.html

 

Obviously you weren't because none of those cover the mathematics of equivalence relations, certainly not business and tax law. So at best you're mistaking something you've previously learnt for a mathematical concept it is not and at worst you're outright lying.

Actually for almost every case in reality \(E \neq mc^{2}\) because the full expression is \(E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + |pc|^{2}\) and since \(|p| \geq 0\), with p=0 only for a stationary object, typically we don't have \(E=mc^{2}\).

Why should anyone care what you think about a mathematical result, whose validity is based on rigorous logic and not uninformed opinion?

As James and I have been explaining, you obviously do not grasp what relativity says or does or the role of zero in mathematics so this repetition of this 'complaint' you have is daft.

It does nothing of the sort because what you're saying is nonsense. And 'equivalence relation' doesn't restrict itself to 'equals'. Two things can be mathematically related by an equivalence without being equal. Equivalence classes and relations are an enormously rich and vast area of mathematics, so much more than just 'equals'. Relative and absolute have nothing to do with it. Once again the issue is between your ears.

You haven't presented any logic, you've presented unjustified assertions typically phrased in a way which makes it clear you don't even know the meaning of the words you use. The question is whether you are saying that because you've deluded yourself or whether you're looking for a rise out of me. What's happened to you, you were at least vaguely lucid in the past, now you're making claims of an ever more ridiculous nature.

Spoken like a true crank.

You obviously don't read all the info. Firstly there's too much for a single person to read and secondly you have shown time and again you don't even know the meaning of basic terminology so even if you have read some you haven't grasped it. And thirdly not evey teacher of mathematics would agree with you given I have taught mathematics modules at university and I don't agree with you. Again, is your ridiculous hyperbole just trolling or do you honestly believe what you're saying?

Yes, yes, you're discovering fundamental truths about mathematics having read all about maths on Wikipedia

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I bet you couldn't even do a simple question about equivalence relations though, just like Farsight claims to know more about quantum mechanics than Nobel Prize winning Dirac yet he cannot answer even the simplest quantitative question and provides nothing of any substance. It's always the way, someone sucks at something all the way through school but when they are not longer required to demonstrate knowledge and understanding in a clear manner suddenly they have all the answers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I really hope you're doing some kind of social experiment to see how wacko you can be before everyone calls you on it. The alternative is somewhat depressing.

Well done on not even being able to use 'transitivity' and 'equivalence' properly in a sentence, illustrating you understand neither. Furthermore both James and I have explained, repeatedly, why this whole "It's being used as a universal reference frame!" is also nonsensical. Being incoherent doesn't make you insightful, it makes you incoherent. Believing yourself knowledgeable and informed when you cannot demonstrate it and you're being constantly corrected by people with demonstrable understanding and knowledge in the subject matter goes beyond incoherent.

But since you don't know relevant information about the mathematical concepts known as zero, equivalence relations, transitivity or reference frames, never mind their use in physical models, you have absolutely no idea what has been discovered/developed and what of that has been ignored or presumed inconsequential. For example, you go on to say

Actually it wasn't. If you'd really been reading all about maths use on Wikipedia you'd know the mathematical and logical knowledge of the Greeks and other ancient civilisations was extremely rudimentary compared to now. The concept of rigorously proving much of the properties of numbers and number systems didn't get developed until around the 1800s. Until then many things were taken as axiomatic when really they aren't. The axioms of logic and set theory weren't formalised into the rigorous structure they are now until the ZFC set theory or the Peano axioms. For example, Euclid assumed, in his 5th postulate, that parallel lines never cross. In many geometries this is false, hence why they are called Non-Euclidean. Again, you have no knowledge of how much mathematical logic there is and how much or little of it pre-dates the Renaissance‎.

It'd be a bit daft of me to claim to know what tax laws are ignored or considered inconsequential to someone I've never met, since I know neither them nor tax law. Yet you presume to know such things about science and scientists. Such an argument on your part is so ridiculous I can only conclude you're deliberately trolling.

Then you'd predict wrong.

Actually we have evidence for both, it's why we have to consider them. They aren't just mathematical artifacts, they relate to specific observed phenomena, namely universal expansion is accelerating (dark energy) and galaxy rotation curves are off (dark matter)

Either you're continuing to hammer at this 'relative zero' thing because you're a troll or an idiot. You've ignored multiple explanations of why you're mistaken about this "which zero?!" thing, so whether by malice or ignorance you're trolling.

False. It's just a Google away and you haven't bother. This just illustrates how all your "I've read...." stuff is not accurate, you clearly don't bother to find out any information before making your assertions.

All experimental evidence and also theoretically says special relativity is valid even in extreme circumstances. General relativity is not valid for extreme gravitational fields but that doesn't mean special relativity isn't. We don't have a quantum gravity model but all our current quantum field theories include special relativity and there's no experimental evidence against it. Do some damn reading.

Is it not fair to acknowledge that if one wishes to make assertions about something one doesn't know anything about that it's dishonest and stupid to just make things up without trying to find out any information about said thing?

No because one of the premises is false. Logic only tells you the implications of the axioms you feed into it. If you feed nonsense in you'll get nonsense out. For example : All men are green. Alan is a man. Therefore Alan is green. That is completely sound logic but obviously not correct in it's conclusions about the real world because one of the inputs, the axiom of all men being green, is not true. You feed in "SR doesn't work in extremes" and conclude something from that, that anything based on special relativity will also not work in such extremes. That is indeed logical, except the conclusion isn't necessarily true because you haven't demonstrated the input, that SR fails in extreme circumstances, to be true.

This is basic logic but it seems to have escaped you. Yet more reason for people not to trust what you claim you know.

No, because the universe is filled with mass and energy and thus has warped space-time. Since special relativity doesn't relate to warped space-time it is the wrong model to use. If you use general relativity then you're using something appropriate. In addition we didn't 'calculate the mass of an entire universe', the expansion of the universe is measured using super novae and the calculation of how much space-time energy must be involved is done using that and general relativity. We trust the GR result because it is within the realm of GR's domain of applicability. We don't use GR to do quantum gravity calculations because we know it isn't appropriate. Knowing when you can trust a model is an essential thing for any physicist to know. You seem to think we don't consider such things, we do and you'd know that if you bothered to check. Yet more examples of how you are woefully uninformed about relevant things. Any rational person would stop making your ridiculous types of assertions.

We have no grounds on a theoretical level to say "SR has limits in extremes", unlike general relativity where it naturally provides examples where it does not work. Experimentally SR has held up against every experiment thrown at it. But we don't sit on our hands and assume it never needs to be checked again, there are physicists who devote their entire careers to exploring ways of testing and hopefully breaking mainstream models and there are theorists considering models which explain current results but disagree with special relativity. They too often provide experiments which could be done to check SR in some new area. Again, you'd know this if you bothered to check. Instead you make assumptions about physics and physicists.

 

gosh!.... well that was a waste of time wasn't it? I stopped reading about word 20.....Hope you enjoyed typing for what's his name....uhmmm Jack shit...
so Alphanumeric, what are you trying to say?

1365 words
273 words of value
1365/273 = 5
5*273=1365 [valid equivalance as (5*273)-(1365)=0 ]

1:5 UCR [ valid efficiency level ]
actual value determined by the target audience...zero (0) due to trying to offend that audience.

do you want to try again?

How do you determine an equivalance relation as being valid?

Note : Because I am not convinced that your mathematics is valid due to your "apparent" lack of knowing the answer to the above question, I do not feel confident in learning something that has no ability to be validated.

 

Summary:

Lorentz Transform:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Lorentz transform tested:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And It is only with zero difference that determines equivalancy.

However as SRT abolishes Absolute Time at t=0, thus making the zero (t) relative , then how can the math of SRT be validated for it's equivalancy?
Therefore absolute zero [re: The one that SRT forbids] is a universal reference frame for ALL MATH.

 

I created an image file of the issue so that I can post it with out repeating the need to type it out.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yep... nice picture, but it may be confusing the issue. I put it in as decoration... mainly...
the observer is located at his own t=0 which is always where he can only be...[HSP in the light cones]

An observer can only ever be at t=0 as anything in the future cone has yet to occur [ prediction] and all moments in the past cone have already occurred. [ History ]
I understand that the cones can be used for any arbitary t=0 relative to the actual t=0 but I am talking about the actual t=0 not a predicted one. You know, the one you are using now as you type your posts on your pc/mac, the t=0 moment that you are always in.

 

Btw it is relatively easy to show the transform in a state of tested validity usng zero, but it is another to show the relativity of simultaneity in the same mode.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and I need to re-word the previous image text as it is convoluted and confusing.
I will rework the diagram shortly. edit: got rid of all the uneccessary text.

as an aside:
An intersting thing I noticed in my research was that Lorenzt apparently concucted the transform with the premise of an aether [& absolute time] in mind... and I am thinking that this may be an issue if applied to a SRT universe that has no absolute time.

You may recall poster MacM was constantly stating that SRT was a poorer verion of LRT.

I have a suspicion that when Einstein incorporated Lorenzt transform after agreeing that there was no aether [ Michelson–Morley experiment ] he failed to see any reason to change it for relative time and no aether.

@ Aphanumeric:

In ZPT zero space [ the void between all those particles and quala and the space they take up] is absolute time at t=0 [duration] it is only the presence of substance that expands zero dimensional space to 4 dimensions.
No aether, no substance just pure space [ volume ]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well done on showing you don't have the honesty to engage in discussion or listen when people correct you. If you have such a short attention span it is not surprising you know nothing about science or mathematics. I outlined how you are provably wrong in your claims but you don't read it because you're too intellectually lazy.

That you're dishonest, a liar and a hack.

Seeing as I've already addressed this but, by your own admission, you haven't got the attention span to read it I conclude you're trolling.

Your unwillingness to read an answer doesn't mean it isn't there. The world doesn't vanish when you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears. Do you think other people will not see I've addressed your mistakes and dishonesty?

You can't even read a post, clearly reading a textbook on mathematics, putting in the time to think about it, to understand it and then get a working grasp of it is beyond your mental capacity. James and I have shown you wrong and/or ignorant time and again, now you're even admitting you don't bother to read responses people give. Thanks for showing how dishonest and lazy you are.

 

I think you are mistaken above. While LET did include an undetectable ether fixed in space, Lorentz, and to be honest others including Poincare, predicted both length contraction and time dilation, as an explanation of the null results of the Michelson and Morley experiments.

Time was not absolute in LET. Space was flat and Newtonian, but both time and lengths were affected by motion in the same way that they are in SR.

I haven't looked at any recent comparrisons, but if you set aside GR and it's improvements on our understanding of gravity, LET and SR mirror eachother. Once gravity becomes the focus, SR leads naturally to GR, and a better description of gravity, (that should be naturally once Einstein pointed the way). Though there have been some attempts to derive an LET based model of gravity, which includes an ether, as far as I am aware it has never returned the same predictive success that GR has. Relativistic ether models, that include a dynamic ether, are a little more successful, but still fall short of GR.

The point was that LET did not include absolute time. Lorentz predicted time dilation along with length contraction.

 

yep.. true... for sure I can call any present moment anything I like but avery moment has a reference point called a HSP - Hyper surface of the present...yes? And that HSP must be exactly between future and past in the light cones.
Why can't you understand that that HSP must be t=0 regardless of where you place it. Sure you can arbitarilly call it what you like, this is the nature of mathematics but in reality the "eternal" present moment has to be t=0.

I don't really care that science believes it can be anything it wants it to be. I am only interested in dealing with the reality of the universe and then relating it to science and not the other way round. The universe does not conform to Human science. Human science must conform to the universe.

Until science gets the basics right it is like wondering around in a labirynth of confusion.

call it what ever you want t= pink elephants will do just as well.... even if you call it t=27 what is the number 27 other than 27 greater than zero...?
You can't escape the fact that all numbers relate back to zero as their reference for value. take out zero and what does 27 mean except scambled egg. [no coherant value]

well read the post again that is confusing and ask me to explain what you don't understand...

Oh I agree entirely as zero space as per ZPT requires no substance other than expanded volume to actually function as zero space.

didn't rely on him then and certainly can't now...[deceased]

this is a totally false position according to my research sources [ which may be false also ]

With all due respect. I suggest, JamesR, that if you are to hold yourself out as an authority on special relativity you get your facts straight.

The transform was generated as a response by Lorentz and Fitzgerald as a reaction to the utter failure of Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887 to prove the existance of an aether [for light] due to the fact that Lorentz believed ardently in the concept of a Luminiferous aether. Albert Einstien was only 8 years old at the time. [born:1879] 1887-1879= 8 , (1887-1879-8=0 [valid equivalance]

well please apologise when you realise your mistake... [ above ]

If you wish to hold yourself out as an expert and make derogatory and assinine comments about other persons understandings you must be beyond reproach yourself.
You have just proved that you aren't. The transforms [1887] were well developed prior to Albert Einsteins utilising them for SRT in 1905.
[according to research]

 

am waiting to be corrected but be aware your correction has to be proved valid and willingly accepted by me if shown accordingly.

written like a true scientist....who doesnt follow the requirements of the scientific method... evidence to support your claims.

have you? well as I said I stopped readin at about word 20 and I must admit it is always difficult to take what you say seriously due to the incredible amount of time wastage due to your psychotic [compulsive] vitriolic ramblings...

psychosis as defined by Alphanumeric.... need to create a wiki article just for you.

Quest: Have you wondered why your attacks against my integrity don't have the impact you wish for?
Ans: Because they are totally false and unsupported. and you call you self a scientist?
Little wonder your commentary is ineffective.. Pick up you game and use the scientific method, or go play with something else, is all I can recommend.

Stop embarrassing the real scientists of the world.

Your post UCR = 0%

 

There is no doubt that all mathematics requires zero to be absolute regardless of where and when it is used or related to, to create value for any number greater than zero.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Any complex or even simple mathematical statement must use values to derive a result.
All values [whether individual or combined] are relative to absolute zero, therefore the universal reference frame for all math is zero [including SRT]

Every symbol used in the above diagram has to individualy relate to absolute zero to achieve coherant value.

Existance is itself related to zero philosophically, and materially [ physics] and SRT is about explaining a part of existance....so the univesral reference frame for SRT is also absolute zero.
There is not a SINGLE universal law that doesn't relate to zero for function and value.


and I will happily offer $200 usd for any one to logically prove that absolute zero is not a universal frame of reference [in the context of this thread]

The logic is clear and simple.

 

You've already had it shown to you you don't know the definitions of relevant concepts. You've already had it shown to you your claim every maths teacher would agree with you is false. You've even admitted you don't read what people say to you. As such saying "I must accept it" is clearly an excuse for you to move the goalposts whenever you wish. Furthermore it's very hypocritical of you to demand others prove things when you cannot prove your own claims

More hypocrisy. The proof there's no "Is this zero the same as that zero?" problem is found in any elementary material on basic arithmetic and number fields. This proves your claims are false, which also demonstrates your assert you're correct is false, made worse by the fact you couldn't even provide evidence yourself.

You don't get to demand people provide evidence for their claims when 1. they do but you don't read it, 2. you don't have the capability to understand the subject matter 3. you don't do it for your own claims.

Hypocrisy and trolling seem to be all you can do.

So you're intellectually lazy, not my problem. The evidence is there that you're repeatedly wrong, whether you read it or not. Reality will not bend to your ignorance. As for compulsive, you show more of your own mentality in saying that than you say about mine. If I was compelled to respond to all of your drivel I'd still be replying to some of your other threads. Knocking down your claims in this thread is entertainment, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You're the guy who claimed my lack of friendly posting style could make people ill. I think you have bigger issues than I.

Because you're detached from reality? Because you have an attention span so short you can't finish a paragraph? Because your ability to process new information is extremely poor?

You can't say "You haven't supported your case!" along side "I stopped reading your post at word 20" and be taken seriously.

There are some people who are so far detached from reality and rationality they cannot be reached. I do not respond to you to try to convince you, you're too far gone. I respond to you because I see you making demonstrably false assertions about something I care deeply about, science. Of course some people reading your posts might not know your assertions are demonstrably false so I demonstrate them false. That why anyone else reading sees the lack of justification and evidence for your position.

There are mathematical constructs which do not involve the concept known as zero. It will surprise many people who haven't taken university level mathematics but numbers are not the fundamental foundation of mathematics. There are entire mathematical constructs where numbers are not considered but instead other logical constructs are considered. Once again an assertion of yours, one which you think is in no doubt, is demonstrably false. A simple example is category theory. Yes, particular categories will pertain to numbers but the abstract concept of a category, in the mathematical meaning of the word, has no requirement for the concept of zero. There, a demonstrably false assertion from you becomes a demonstrated false assertion from you. Want another example? You say 'greater than zero'. There are mathematical constructs where 'greater than' is not well defined, even though numbers might be considered. The algebraic closure of the Reals, the Complex numbers, have no ordering. In fact there is only one complete ordered field, the Reals. 'Greater than', along with 'equals' and 'less than' are all examples of relations. Not equivalence relations (though equals is), relations. Such constructs do not require an ordering and can apply to more general or abstract concepts. Asking if two numbers relate to one another is different from saying if one is bigger than the other, it is more general. A more general class of constructs which have relations partially defined on them are Posets, or Partial Ordered Sets. Another concept which doesn't require the notion of zero. Some constructs don't even involve relations.

It's natural for someone who has only ever been exposed to below university level mathematics to think many of the concepts pertaining to numbers are fundamental to mathematics but this really isn't the case. a*b need not be b*a. a<b might be meaningless. a*b might be meaningless. (a*b)*c might not be a*(b*c). All of those things are properties children (and many adults) take for granted. Not so in some very common areas of mathematics. Quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the fact a*b is not always b*a. But you wouldn't know this, you haven't bothered to learn anything. Perhaps you won't even read this, your attention span isn't good enough. But never the less I'm saying it so people can see firstly how weird and wonderful mathematics can be and secondly how easy it is to blow your assertions out of the water.

As I just explained, this is false. There are many mathematical statements which have nothing to do with values, including zero. Entire walls of libraries are covered with books all about mathematics which doesn't involve numbers and values. I've already given some examples. Want some more? Group theory need not have anything to do with numbers. In fact the number system used in child level arithmetic is vastly more structured and limited than such things are groups. In basic arithmetic a+b and a*b both have meaning. Not so in a group, only one of them is defined and it may not do what standard addition or multiplication do.

You've also already been told by James and myself, more than once, about how your use of reference frame is mistaken, both in terms of what it means within physical models like relativity and in the manner in which you attempt to use it in regards to zero. You don't take in information when provided to you so your constant demands to have evidence and justification put in front of you are completely disingenuous as you admit you don't read much of it. It seems it is just to give your posts the superficial veneer of respectability, to try to hide how little you know or bother to find out.

And now you're into the same incoherent unjustified realm of vapid assertion as masterov or chinglu. At least they have some excuse, English isn't their first language. At least when they use Google translate it will mean they spell things correctly, even if the sentences are incoherent. 5 spelling mistakes in 2 lines.

Yes, it is when you take the time to learn it. Unfortunately, by your own admission, you refuse to read when it is put in front of you.

Category theory. Provides mathematical constructs devoid of numbers and value or ordering and which is a clear counter example to your statement about 'any complex mathematical statement' involving them. No doubt you'll refuse to pay up because you either will say you didn't read this far or give some excuse which is really a veiled "I didn't understand that so I refuse to accept it". Besides, I neither want nor need your money, please give the $200 to your nearest homeless shelter.

 

Total Words 1209
Value words 507

UCR 41%
and that is being generous...