Re: SR consistency is crap.

From: Mike (eleatis_at_yahoo.gr)
Date: 11/20/04 

Date: 20 Nov 2004 07:19:37 -0800

troubled6man@yahoo.com (J.E.) wrote in message news:<39d6e584.0411191503.254bb513@posting.google.com>...
> "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<FBjnd.33999$z3.12491@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > news:305m3lF2thllgU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > >
> > > eleaticus wrote:
> > >
> > > > One more obvious proof that Einstein's derivation in 1905 is just as
> much
> > > > crap as his 1916/1962 derivation.
> > >
> > >
> > > SR is an excercise in the algebra of Lorentz-Poincare transformations as
> > > applied to electromagnetic fields. If it is mathematically inconsistent
> > > then so is the theory real variables and linear algebra. That takes down
> > > ALL of physics.
> >
> > Reliance on the concept of mathematical consistency is nonsense.
> >
> > Just consider the inconsistency as to which of two identically manufactured
> > and maintained objects is shorter/longer when in relative motion. "You're
> > shorter!" "No! YOU are!" "Wrong, ***, I can clearly see you are much
> > shorter than me!" "Idiot! Are you insane?!" etc. No inconsistency there?
> > LOL. You assholes!
> > .
> > Just consider the inconsistency of deriving spatial coorinate
> > transformations and not being able to actually use them with EM quantities
> > like E,B, D, H, etc. Or having 'cook the books' when you actually do try
> > to apply them to an equation.
> >
> > The restort to 'mathematical consistency' reminds me of Chritian resort to
> > the Books of Moses to exclude their violence: immaterial, irrelevant, and
> > incompetent.
> >
> > eleaticus
>
> Eleaticus, math (set theory) doesn't say that objects are shorter or
> longer when in relative motion. Minkowski geometry is consistent iff
> set theory is consistent. Humans cannot directly observe the "length"
> of an object, nor can we directly observe how old something else is,
> we can touch things, and we can look at light images of things that
> left a while ago, we can count and watch our own clocks, these are the
> real things and ALL ELSE is MEASURED (not observered) in terms of
> those things real things.
>
> S.R. makes a prediction about the REAL observations, what we TOUCH
> (coincident events) and what we SEE (light-like separated events), God
> only knows what A.E. does but A.E. it not what people are talking
> about when they discuss modern S.R.
>
> Minkowski geometry is contradictory iff set theory is contradictory.
> I think it is likely that your fixation on A.E.'s person has blinded
> your ability to learn the modern theory which is equiconsistent with
> set theory.
>
> People cite the consistency of set theory because they know that there
> is a $7 million bounty on disproving set theory, and they think you
> are a raving fool if you honestly think you have a disproof and aren't
> trying to collect that cash for yourself. Mangling the application of
> sight and touch into abstract concepts that you call length and time
> and such that you then make wild assumptions about how these ARTEFACTS
> of YOUR mind MUST behave is not science, it's just a waste of
> everyone's time even your own. Modern S.R. makes predictions about
> what you SEE, and it does it in a way that is equiconsistent with set
> theory, whose inconsistency has a $7 million bounty.

Nice try. Instead of spending $1,000 years to prove set theory
onconsistency, because you won't, like those thousands of monks died
trying to dsprove the consistency of Euclidean geometry, it's a lot
easier to SEE something that SR SEES otherwise. For explame: speed of
gravity is almost infinite. End.

Mike

Quantcast