Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:43:29 -0400

eleaticus wrote:
>
> Yes, indeed, inconsistencies of a purely mathematical LOGICAL nature are
> implicit in SR. It is idiocy at its base.

Any logical or mathematical inconsistencies in SR are inconsistencies in
the theory of real variables and linear mappings of vectors spaces. In
short, ALL the mathematics used by ANY branch of physics is likewise
inconsistent, which means ALL of physics comes crashing to the ground.

But this is not the case. No one has identified any -internal-
inconsitencies in SR. Now SR may be wrong, i.e. empirically falsifiable,
but that is NOT the same thing as being internallly inconsistent. SR is
just maxwellian electrodynmics in a Minkowski four-space subjected to
Lorenz transformations. In a purely mathematical sense it is an
excercise in group actions.

Apparently you do not know the difference between empirical
falsifiability and mathematical inconsistency. Your other postings on
the invariance of Maxswell's equations under Galilean transform is
indicative you do not know dickey-doo about mathematics. We know that
Maxwell's equations are not microscopically true, but they are
consistent and they are NOT galilean invariant.

Bob Kolker

Quantcast