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

From: Jim Black (ghytrfvbnmju7654_at_mail.com)
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: 17 Oct 2004 01:21:15 -0700

robert j. kolker wrote:
> 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

I am posting this to the newsgroups only because I do not have your
e-mail address. Do not respond to this, unless by e-mail. The
"ghytrfvbnmju7654" address is indeed a working address, but not my
primary one.

Net.kooks of the scientific variety exhibit several stages of
stupidity. In descending order, we have the Falsified, the
Non-quantitative, the Inconsistent, and the Unintelligible.
Webster/Eleaticus was Inconsistent from the start, but by now has
descended into the very lowest category: That of the Spammer. Like
George Hammond and "tj frazir," his statements are so ludicrous that
the only way he thinks he can get anyone to take notice of his
self-presumed genius is to post the same spew to as many newsgroups as
he can, over and over again.

Webster has the distinction of being a Listed Spammer. He is on the
list being maintained by Morturi-Max in the threads with the subject
"Operation Troll Shoulder." Once a crackpot reaches the status of a
Listed Spammer, we encourage that no replies be made to him at all.

Like most Spammers, he always tries to hide his spam under a cover of
excuses. Webster's great contribution to the field was the practice of
writing up a spam message in the form of an FAQ.

But what Webster is doing right now is a technique often used by George
Hammond, that of crossposting a troll to a large number of newsgroups,
and following up every single response, no matter what the nature of
the response, with more spam. With this tactic, it is possible to run
up hundreds of posts with essentially the same content in a few days,
while appearing at a superficial glance to be a normal thread. Please
do not help him. 

--
Jim Black
"Wrong.  In fact, They used the 'change of speed' definition [of
acceleration] to make TV's and monitors at all, They also used a static
charge changing direction of electron flow to make such" -- Spaceman