Eugene Shubert, still wrong ten years later

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by rpenner, Aug 29, 2015.

  1. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,713
    Sure, why not? It makes a helluva lot more sense than he purposely misspelled a word for some unspecified nefarious reason.

    I am done with this discussion - it is just a bit too weird for me.

    Good luck.
     
    Walter L. Wagner likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    No. The breach of scholarship and even civility is you not posting a link to your quotes.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    For the third time, I am using the link to your paper in the nested quotes in post #1, the very post you cite. The innermost post is your reference to Hilbert's words.

    Every proper quote of a post on this forum has the form:
    X said: and an up arrow that links to the post the quote came from. ​

    Nested quotes don't happen by accident. I put them that way so the context would be preserved.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
  8. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    You introduced the quote and paper on a Discussion forum. I have discussed them. You introduced the paper on a science forum. I have explained reasons why the paper doesn't met the lowest bar of scientific writing. That's not interpretation, that's criticism — evading it doesn't make you grow better. Like when, in 2010, you were told explicitly why it was no mystery why Lorentz transforms are linear ( http://www.sciforums.com/posts/2629289 ) only to repeat that baseless and confusing description in your December 6, 2013 paper. Who needs this thread? Who needs to absorb and cogitate on the first seven posts of this thread? You do, or we will never see you improve.

    I was waiting for you to argue against my claims. Instead you found a typo in my notes that I later flagged with "[sic]" thinking it was your misspelling. You were not very clear when pointing out what made you unhappy about my post with the typo, but when I realized it was my mistake you were complaining about, I apologized. (Post #33.) You then refused to accept this apology despite the initial 7 posts of this thread which show a great deal of effort went into the specific criticism of your paper. Also, I make an unwitting mistake again in post #26 when I get the date of your paper wrong. Also, Walter Wagner says I make typos and I have been criticizing some positions he takes since about 2006-2007 ( http://www.sciforums.com/threads/85716/ ) so it's not like we're conspiring against you. I worked for quite some time with your paper, and I know I was working with a printout because about 6 months ago I threw out a crumpled up copy of it that I still had in my work papers. I had given up hope that you would ever respond to this thread.

    Also, the Wayback Machine says that you have reused that same URL for more than one paper. So you should cite the title and date if you want people to be sure which paper you mean.
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Derivations are scientific. You just don't understand my time equations. I think it's reasonable to expect that anything willfully misunderstood will be attacked with angry criticisms. For example, Richard Dawkins foolishly attacks every concept of God.
     
  10. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    I understand that your equations are not synonymous with special relativity and therefore some of the exposition in your paper is wrong-headed.

    Particularly your rejection of linearity.
     
  11. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Bigotry rests confidently on shockingly superficial reasoning. The incredible promise presented in the abstract was adequately demonstrated. "If spacetime is defined intuitively, tangibly, with minimal restrictions, then nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations arise naturally."

    The problem here is that you can't fathom the existence of "nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations." Understandably, that's why your critique ends so abruptly. Consequently, it's no mystery why you don't have a clue about how I've derived my time equations and how I've used them to compute time dilation.
     
  12. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Not only is your presupposition not what my title suggests, it's also contradicting the quintessence of my thesis: "If spacetime is defined intuitively, tangibly, with minimal restrictions, then nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations arise naturally."

    Thanks for presupposing that my construct is too incredible to be taken seriously.
     
  13. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Only a linear transform of Cartesian spaces maps ALL straight lines to straight lines, midpoints to midpoints and planes to planes. Without that property even Newton's law of inertia and the metric properties of space and time break and you no longer have physics. Thus it has to be a linear transform with determinant 1. Both the Galilean and Lorentz transforms have this property.

    GR admits nonlinear transforms of coordinates precisely because it introduces geometric terms into the laws of physics so that it can describe straight lines (on a curved manifold) without being tied to Cartesian coordinates.
     
  14. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Start with flat-spacetime and write down the Minkowski metric. Then select any undeniably wild nonlinear change of coordinates that you like. Next, compute the resulting form of the expected, undeniably wild-looking pseudo-Riemannian metric and with it compute all the required Christoffel symbols. Then, in this new coordinate system, solve the geodesic equation and get back to me.

    "My personal predilection for mischief, irreverence for religious relativity and absurdly nonlinear clock synchronizations is no threat to the homogeneity and isotropy of spacetime. If I'm wrong and if my continued use of hazardous and unlicensed clock synchronizations begins to tear at the fabric of spacetime, then, and only then, will I do away with the threat—for a fee." — Eugene Shubert

    "Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sorts of parties." —Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979)
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2017
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That's General Relativity and not the content of your 2013 paper. You can't defend your 2013 paper by re-writing it.

    Special Relativity is about flat-space time, where inertial Cartesian coordinates are the natural coordinate system because they are orthogonal and the Minkowski metric is diagonal and constant. Newton loved the Cartesian coordinate system because it made vector addition (and therefore vector calculus) trivial.

    From paragraph 2 of your 2013 paper: “The most glaring misconception in relativity theory is the belief that nature requires linearity for the space and time transformation equations between inertial frames of reference.” This is your original thesis and misconception, utterly refuted by General Relativity (and aspects of multivariable calculus). It is Newton (not nature!) that requires linearity between inertial Cartesian coordinates systems, because of the law of inertia (the space-time trajectories of inertial particles are straight lines). Cartesian coordinates describe straight lines as affine relations between coordinates and arc length on the straight line. Linear transforms mean there is a linear relationship between arc length on the straight line in one system and the other and therefore an affine relation between arc length in one coordinate system and coordinates in the other. Thus linearity guarantees straight lines are mapped to straight lines. Likewise, midpoints to midpoints.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2017
  16. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I'm very surprised to hear your confession of ignorance. Indisputably, you have never been trained to apply the mathematics that I learned as a college freshman to an elementary exercise in flat-spacetime.

    "It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass." — The Inventor of the Infinite Improbability Drive, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979)
     
  17. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,500
  18. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    37
    Instant fail, you never addressed his points and continued to just evade. Signs of admittance that you have lost.
     

Share This Page