SRT and the use of relative zero?

if you weren't saying the same thing to virtually any poster who disagrees with you I would proabby take note....alas you do however so 'tis all nonesne from you and nothing more.
Do you feel every one is deluded or paranoid Alphanumeric... it certainy seems that way. To you the world is sick and you are ok ....yes? That does not sound to good Aphanumeric when the entire world around you is mentally sick and you reckon you are the one that is ok...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

definitivey trying to tell przyk not to post....
and we were just getting started too...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, he was telling me he thought it would be a waste of my time to post. Quite frankly, I agree with him. I usually avoid threads like this one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

fair enough,, then don't post... next!?

 

The above appears to be the standard response yet to me this is treating the situation too superficially.
What has been said is correct but behind all of that is still the key validator for all mathematics and that is absolute zero. It is implied most of the time and sometimes actually called upon to validate and anchor mathematics and just about everything else to achieve consistancy in the resultant values.

The use of a arbitary valueless zero [ floating if you like ] is all well and good until we start talking about the very fundamentals of universal structure and function. In this case it is the decision to move away from absolute time [ space ] (Newtonian) and towards relative time [ space ] (Minkowski/Einstein)

It essentially means that an observer at relative does not share the same space in time as the other observer as absolute space is no longer considered as viable.
It is a bit like comparing two bottles of deep space vacuum an claiming that the space contained inside those containers is relatively different in time.

So absolute space for each observer is different yet both can share the same HSP.
t= relative 0 with an absolute zero as a back drop. is the proposition...this thread is puting forward.
Using absolute space to determine relative space...therefore absolute zero coud be considered as the universal frame of reference by default and not intent.

 

Clearly an attempt to censor my posting here.

 

oh how so? please explain....

 

You are telling me not to post. You are clearly trying to censor discussion for your own psychotic reasons.

 

not at all I was only agreeing with you...
see your post:

my post in response:

how is the above censoring you?
where have I stated that you should not post...?

 

@przyk,
I know you and others are having difficulty dealing with the feelings I inspire with in you. It is something I have lived with for over 20 years now. So I am well aware of how troubling those feelings can be. Claims of me being psychotic or insane or deluded etc that can not be supported by facts are about as common for me as clouds in the sky...
Unfortunately I can not change my truth any more than you can and it makes no difference whether I am accused of being ....now let me see:
1] an undercover cop... this is very popular. Never justified.
2] a serious sex offender... very common [ I have even had people come up to try and sell me their children..on two occassions.] Never justified.
3] psychotic, paranoid, deluded etc almost all the time. Never justified. [ in context of this post]
4] Basically anything that would destroy my credibility as a person, both in business and personal life.
I have been physically attacked on 4 occasssions by mental health recipients in public shopping centres. Two of those occassions ending up in court.
I was even attacked once by a one armed [ as in one hand ] door man for a local gaming venue. [his paranoia] - absurd - court case - convicted
I have even been threatened by a person impersonating a police officer who was an imported thug from Sydney. video evidence vanishes.
I have been asked to assist a company that was being sabotaged for it's USA genetics software whilst sitting in a coffee shop. [ the MD thought I was there to protect him - resultant fire closes shopping center for 7 days]
the list just continues so I won't bother...

So I understand your need to accuse me of unjustified psychosis and to tell you the truth I aint perfect and I accept this as best I can.

this is merely another example of yours and other peoples inabiity to cope with the truth they are feeling and experiencing.
I know who and what I am... and so do you and so does every one I have contact with....... and that's the problem...

 

You are missing my point. I am not particularly interested in accusing you of psychosis. I'm just pointing out that I can accuse you of being psychotic and having ulterior motives every bit as easily as you can accuse AlphaNumeric of exactly the same things.

Did you really not notice I was using almost exactly the same language as you did [POST=2978370]here[/POST] and [POST=2977808]here[/POST]?

 

You mean this post directed at Alphanumeric:

are you aware of how many times AN has attempted to advise persons not to post?
of course you can accuse any one of anything for what ever motive you may have, but please be prepared for the appropriate ramifications of unsupported accusations being revealed.
of course I noticed and I am aware of your motive for doing so... so what?
It does not change the fact that you have made an unsupported accusation.

 

so your point is?
My post directed towards Alphanumeric is supported ... yours wasn't supported so your point is?

Why are you making a fool of yourself przyk? why? [ and I know you are not a fool! ]
Why do you think science and the legal system requires evidence or at least justification to support it's claims?

Why are you suggesting that it is somehow ok to make what ever accusations you feel like regardless of support or justifications?

 

You see , I do not care, too much about background hash and static, I care about what is published in the public domain. it doesn't matter to me what mind games may be involved. For what ever reason you want to now claim, you have made a public accusation which you have failed to support.
Can you support the fact that you intended only to make a demonstration of some sort. Are you able to convince any one that you are not simply attempting to cover up your own mistake by claiming it to be a bizzare teaching strategy of some sort?
Of course you can't...
and as I have stated Iam not all that concerned about it any way...

btw it is not up to me to make a scene about how the posting forms are not functioning correctly, especially using the advanced tab... I'll leave that to someone else to get egg on their faces.

 

I've got some idea. Have you considered the simple explanation that it's just his way of venting frustration?

Yup. I'm getting you don't like the taste of your own medicine.

 

Can we go back to the topic?

The above appears to be the standard response yet to me this is treating the situation too superficially.
What has been said is correct but behind all of that is still the key validator for all mathematics and that is absolute zero. It is implied most of the time and sometimes actually called upon to validate and anchor mathematics and just about everything else to achieve consistancy in the resultant values.

The use of a arbitary valueless zero [ floating if you like ] is all well and good until we start talking about the very fundamentals of universal structure and function. In this case it is the decision to move away from absolute time [ space ] (Newtonian) and towards relative time [ space ] (Minkowski/Einstein)

It essentially means that an observer at relative velocity does not share the same space in time as the other observer as absolute space is no longer considered as avialable.
It is a bit like comparing two bottles of deep space vacuum an claiming that the space contained inside those containers is relatively different in time.

So absolute space for each observer is different yet both can share the same HSP.
t= relative 0 with an absolute zero as a back drop. is the proposition...this thread is puting forward.
Using absolute space to determine relative space...therefore absolute zero coud be considered as the universal frame of reference by default and not intent.

 

nope my posts are supported ... so what are you trying to do...

there is a big difference you know...

or do you?

unsupported accusations after 20 years of it are like water of a ducks back...
If you really want to hurt me try supporting any of it.....

tell you what how about I vent a little frustration in your direction.....hmmmmmm....would I be justified? Is it acceptable?
It seems to be considered as ok to vent as you see fit, why not I?
Do you really want me to vent like Alphanumeric does? really? are you sure?

 

Do you know how many persons are in prison or psychiatric facilities because they thought it was ok to vent their frustration?
simple answer is: just about all of them....

 

Not really, since you have done nothing to rule out alternative, simpler explanations for the same posting behaviour.

As the "victim" of AlphaNumeric's supposed intent to control and censor my posting here, I think it's also relevant for me to say that I never, even for a second, interpreted his post that way.

(That AlphaNumeric would want to censor or control me seems like an odd proposition to begin with. Why would AlphaNumeric want to censor one of the people most likely to agree with him? Nothing about your assessment of his motivations makes any sense.)

That would depend on how you vented that frustration and whether I'd really earned it in the first place.

I doubt that. It's hard to imagine someone committing credit card fraud out of frustration. Some people are just greedy.

I think you'll also find that people in prison or psychiatric institutions with anger issues are there because they committed crimes far beyond everyday venting of frustration, to the extent they're considered a danger to individuals or society at large.

 

It's always humorous when hacks take the way I deal with them and assume I deal with everyone in that manner.

It is a common thread in the behaviour of almost all hacks that you are intellectually dishonest or lazy or both. It's a common thread that you'll believe you're asking coherent questions on topics you think you understand but you aren't because you don't. It's a common thread that you think I deal with everyone the way I deal with people who are intellectually dishonest or lazy. It's a common thread for hacks to think I think I know everything, when really I just know more than the hacks. You're the one who thinks I'm trying to control people. You're the one who thinks there's 'contracts' here for the moderators. Your posts say more about your attitude than you realise.

As for 'the whole world' in my view.... Do I think most people have a terrible grasp of science? Yes. Do I think most people are dishonest or paranoid. No. Most people I don't give enough credit to to assume they are even bothered enough to care about science. That's apathy in a different way from intellectual dishonesty. And I never said 'the entire world' in regards to your comments, I clearly directly my comments specifically at you. This interpolation from how you're treated to how everyone is treated is at best unwise. Even taking my posts on this forum as a whole you don't get an accurate sense of how I treat people day to day. Outside of my job, which is science related, I rarely talk science, in fact I almost actively avoid it, so the sorts of discussions which arise here don't arise in my day to day life. And I certainly don't think 'the entire world is mentally sick'. I slate you because you've shown somewhat deplorable behaviour. I can get on perfectly well with non-science people. In fact pretty much every partner I've ever had stopped learning science at aged 16, there's more to life than it. So this assumption of yours I label the entire world mentally ill says more about how you view yourself than it does about I view the world.

So anyone who offers opinion or advice in your eyes is telling someone to do something? And, to quote you, for 'psychotic reasons'? I hope waiters never give you meal suggestions at restaurants.

I gave a lengthy explanation about the nature of zero within mathematics, you ignored it all. Your position is completely without mathematical detail, so it's laughable you complain others are being too superficial. Perhaps if I Google image searched for a picture of a tornado and drew some lines on it you'd listen?

And another example of how you think others view you. QQ, you are not the first, nor will you be the last, hack to claim some deep insight into something you obviously don't understand. You are another face in a, somewhat depressingly large, sea of faces made up of internet hacks. You invoke no more 'feeling' in me than any other person I think is ignorant. Unfortunately because there are so many ignorant people around it doesn't produce any change in my feelings. Sorry but you aren't special, you don't invoke 'feelings' beyond that of any other hack, temporary exasperation. If przyk and I couldn't handle such 'feelings' we'd not last long on internet forums, would we?

Sorry, are you trying to be deliberately hypocritical or was that just an accident? I give przyk my opinion that you're not worth bothering and you call my actions/motivations 'psychotic' but then you make a comment about how you're being called psychotic without justification? Stupidity isn't a psychosis but it's still a problem.

No, you're not supporting your case, either about me or about zero. Ironically you've complained others have been too superficial or called you psychotic without justification, making you a hypocrite.

I keep hoping you're doing a social experiment to be as ridiculously hypocritical as you can before you're laughed off the forum.