Space time is reality Pseudo

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by chinglu, Oct 19, 2013.

  1. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637

    1) Let's start with your failed notion of trying to defend space time of only light flashes as an "affine space".

    In an affine space, there is no distinguished point that serves as an origin. Hence, no vector has a fixed origin and no vector can be uniquely associated to a point.​
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_space

    Obviously, each light ray has a point of origin, hence, your assertion that an affine concept saves Minkowski space from failing.

    Now, I do not think you are a troll, I think you don't understand how this all works or you would not have attempted to shoehorn light rays into an affine space.

    Now, since you have retreated from defending space-time under the Minkowski metric as valid exactly as I explained it to you, let's review why.

    1) The minkowski space is not a metric space. Therefore, it is not a valid geometric space.
    2) The minkowski space is not a Hausdorff space. Hence, it does not have a definition of global continuity. As indicated by mathpages and me, along a light ray, the minkowski metric (distance) is always 0 from the origin. Anyone in this universe would disagree with any math definition of a space that does not support global continuity as does the minkowski metric. So, any reasonable person would refute this silly space definition.
    3) The LT function does not preserve the light postulate.
    a) The light postulate requires any ray moves at c in the frame.
    b) The light postulate requires given 2 light rays with different y/z coords that are simultaneous in one frame will not be simultaneous in another frame.
    c) If a light pulse is emitted from the origins of two frames, each frame origin remains as the center of all light spheres. ​

    LT preserves 1 and 2, but does not preserve 3 since for any time interval, frame X views concentric light spheres, but the LT mapping on that time interval is not a set of only concentric light spheres.

    So, LT does not preserve the geometry of concentric light spheres.

    You have nothing left.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Well, you learn (or in my case, see) something new every day. Never heard of 'affine' space before. Just another thing toget my head around.

    Anyway, brilliant post Chinglu.

    Lets see how they handle it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    I, as part of the "they " does not have to handle it.
    If he [chiinglu] has evidence invalidating the established view of space/time, then he/she must present such evidence, not just make some outrageous claim, and then expect all and sundry to get down on our knees in adoration for such a brilliant concept.

    But like "sands through the hour glass", and "dust in the wind" , he has absolutely no foundation whatsoever to support such rubbish.

    Space/time is a 4 dimensional abstract entity against which the equations of SR/GR are calculated, and which has been shown to have basis in reality, by the recent GP-B experimental probe.


    http://einstein.stanford.edu/
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MinkowskiSpace.html

    Minkowski space is a four-dimensional space possessing a Minkowski metric

    dtau^2=-(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2+(dx^3)^2.
    Alternatively (but less desirably), it can be considered to have a Euclidean metric but with imaginary time coordinate x^0=ict, where c is the speed of light, by convention c=1 is normally used, and i is the imaginary number sqrt(-1). Minkowski space unifies Euclidean three-space plus time (the "fourth dimension") in Einstein's theory of special relativity.
     
  8. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Well, OK I wasn't saying you specifically - though you proceeded to 'handle it anyway in your two posts, contrary to your protestation that you don't have to ..

    Yes, and now, this IS an alternative theory, etc, place, so it is not inappropriate for folk to query or discuss such abstract entities.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846

    Only because I'm a nice bloke, and can't stand to see some lay people being grossly mislead by half baked pseudo quackery without one shred of evidence.




    No it's not an alternative theory.....It's pseudoscience, and it's completley unsupported crap, and yes it is in the right place, just as I have told chinglu before with regards to his feather brained ideas and anti- establishment bias.
    But in saying that, he also has rules he needs to play by to get any respect.
    The onus is on him to falsify the present accepted establishment model of SR/GR, or offer observational and/or experimental evidence that his quackery explains in greater and more precise detail then SR/GR, and as others have continually told him.
    He is unable to do that....So his quackery ends right there...A lead balloon no less.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  10. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    You seem to be quite upset about something or other, and bent on shutting him down. Is it up to you to shut him down ?

    There seems to be a plethora of anti relativity stuff all over the place, both from scientists and non scientists. I would say the proprietors of this site have provided these 'On the fringe' categories for the purposes of discussion of all manner of subjects. Why does this distress you so ?

    Some people like exchange of ideas, no matter how outlandish or confronting they may appear to you. Challanging the establishment per se is no bad thing. Sometimes progress is made this way.

    Calm down.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846

    Upset???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not in the least. Just trying to educate a fellow human being as to the proper scientific methodology.
    But hey, if that upsets you then you need to have a word in his ear.





    With respect, you appear to be the one getting upset...
    Where is all this anti relativity stuff you are on about?
    You mean on forums such as this?
    Let me give you some facts.....The real scientists, those at the cutting edge and in the Labs, and with orginisations such as NASA, do not really have the time to participate at these forums. These science forums are a magnet to "would be's if they could be's, " Armchair scientists and those that would rather sit back and criticise while the real scientists at the coal face carry on their work, and last but not least, those that have that unhealthy anti-establishment bias, and see the need to oppose for oppositions sake, even if it means championing complete quackery.

    Yes you are correct in saying the proprietors provide alternative sites for the putting of new ideas, but you seem to have ignored the accepted way to go about these things.
    Simply regurgitating the same sentences over and over, in reply to all the refutations showing his alternative ideas are not viable is not the way the scientific methodology works.
    Again since you have apparently missed it, he should show why the current model is inadequate or wrong with evidence invalidating it, he needs examples confirming his hypothesis, and finally if he was serious and fair dinkum, [as he is trying to portray] then he would take his model through the proper channels.


    With challenging the establishment, of course you are correct again, and [shock and horror

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] I have done my share of anti establishment arguing, including on this forum, and I also have my own ideas that do not fit exactly with accepted convention, but after putting these points and accepting refutation, I do not continue to pretend to know better then those at the cutting edge, and call established science a joke, or scientists Idiots. I accept that I maybe wrong....after all, I'm only a layman.


    And please cut out the sanctimonious crap that you are portraying and accept that it maybe you that needs to calm down and educate yourself to the scientific method, and the definition of a scientific theory.


    And finally, as this thread has been moved to "Pseudoscience" where it should be, and I have made myself clear re the claims, I will refrain from replying anymore to chinglu's inevitable responses in this thread, unless of course, he actually does come up with some observation and/or experiment invalidating SR/GR, or observational and/or experimental evidence supporting his/her claims.
    If that happens, I will post to congratulate him and do my best to see he wins next year's Noble prize for physics.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  12. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I was giving lectures to RPenner on this very subject in the "science" thread.

    No, the Minkowski metric does not induce a metric space. Part of the requirements of a metric space with its metric is below.

    d(x,y) = 0 if and only if x = y.

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MetricSpace.html

    Yet, we have d(x,0) = 0 by the Minkowski metric for any light ray connected to the origin.

    So, this is a simple proof that the Minkowski metric does not induce a metric space.
    Also, your analysis of me is wrong.

    I simply seek truth unlike most humans that are herd animals looking for a lord to follow regardless of real truth.

    Finally, all I could see from RPenner after the OP post above is ass and elbows.
     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    It is sad to see that RPenner chooses not to defend his post in this forum. His readers will understand he must be wrong. He was given the chance to prove his case, but they now understand that he does not know what he is talking about since he will not defend his post.

    I am disappointed in RPenner.
     
  14. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,067
    Reading the title then seeing the thread open with you quoting rpenner made me laugh.

    Didn't bother reading at all.
     
  15. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Well, RPenner did not respond to his own post.

    Why is that?

    Fear stinks.
     
  16. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637


    It is amazing how much help RPenner needs from others.

    Why is that?
     
  17. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    You're only a layman, yet you deride 'armchair scientists' ..

    You refer to unhealthy anti establishment bias, yet you admit to your share of anti establishment views and you admit to ideas that do not fit the .. convention ..

    WOW, paddo - you seem quite conflicted.

    Take it easy. Relax. I like to hear Chinglus material. Why deprive me of the opportunity, seeing as it's in the right forum ? Who died and made you ther boss ?
     
  18. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,067
    He lost an argument with victorespinoza and currently fears more humiliation.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846

    More to the point, you seem quite confused!...or maybe just purposely mis-reading my posts.
    Let me straighten you out.....
    Yes, I'm a layman, that has at times argued established doctrine until I have received a satisfactory explanation....In other words, I'm not just a pig-headed anti establishment fanatic.
    But I'm not an anti-establishment junkie so to speak, and will always ask questions when I do not understand properly.
    And I truly doubt chinglu is a scientist of any calibre......

    And of course chiglu's has the right to post pseudoscience in the pseudoscience forum, and I also, along with any one else, has the right to critically appraise his ideas and debunk when they are in obvious conflict with observations and experiments that have been conducted since 2005.
    You may like to hear chinglu's material, that's your choice....I also have a choice to debunk when I see it necessary.
    But you should also not set out to mis-interprete and be honest in your dealings with other forumites...
    have a good day....I will!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    I always have a good day.

    Thank you for allowing my choice to hear others rather than trying to shut them down.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    Chinglu has shut himself down, way back up there somewhere....And I will continue to add critical analysis when I chose to and when needed, directed at any other crazy pseudo quackery.

    Byeee

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    You just added more noise. Earlier, you said ..

    I, as part of the "they " does not have to handle it.

    Seems like another contradiction though.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    Gee, again that agenda certainly prevents logical thinking......
    Let me again explain.......
    Chinglu has the right to put pseudoscience claims in pseudoscience....
    The forum has a right to refute, invalidate and critically appraise and that includes me, and I can also, along with anyone else, add critical analysis to any other pseudo-scientific poster with some other outragous claim.
    Get it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2013

Share This Page