Re: SR consistency is crap.

From: J.E. (troubled6man_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/19/04 

Date: 19 Nov 2004 15:03:34 -0800

"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.

Quantcast