Space time is reality Pseudo

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

  1. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    You last sentence .. well, all of them but particularly that last one ..

    Read it again Paddo .. are there really people that write like that ?

    My final comment is on the other thread.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846


    Yep, me,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Again live with it or do the other thing!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Apologies though [sincerely] for the mistyped r instead of t in the word refute!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    I notice Chinglu, that none have taken up your OP. As I've told you before on many occassions, I don't support or reject your views, though I continue to be impressed as to how you are able to reduce it to issue to understandable points.

    I continue therefore, to follow your posts and your interactions with others with interest, as HOW people argue, often says as much (if not more) as WHAT they are arguing.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846


    Not true in any sense of the word and verified quite adequately in the " Space-time is a reality " thread, where chinglu was given a holiday for trolling and pseudoscience quackery in a science thread, and subsequently moved it here. The thread was also closed due to said nonsense.
    rpenner gave quite an outstanding post in refutation of chinglu's nonsense.......


    And obviously you do support his stance, as I will explain in the other thread in answer to your question.

    And also I see rpenners lack of further refutation in either of the two threads relative to SR/GR, as just plain giving up on chinglu as a complete loser, and in that respect, he has much more self control and sense then I do. Your incessant goading by the way, in trying to drag him into it again, says heaps about your own lack of decency and respect for him, simply because he has argued from the accepted scientific method in putting down unsupported crap..
    I dips me lid to him.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2013
  8. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You can think and justify anything you want.

    RPenner is not here because I refuted his "affine space" assertions about Minkowski space time. There is nothing he can do. And, if he does show up here, I will pour that error all over him.

    Now, if you prove RPenner is correct in the post of the OP, then your post above will be valid.

    Otherwise, your post is invalid.

    As of now, no one has been able to stop my purely mathematical remarks that Minkowski is not a valid space by any reasonable measure.

    It does not even support global continuity.

    So, that is where this thread stands at this time.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846


    And of course what now should follow, is that you get your definition ratified and peer reviewed through appropriate channels....
    What's that I here????
    They have rejected your quackery?? They have referred you to the Easter bunny and Santa Claus???? They laughed at you????They said your idea is absurd in every respect????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You poor demented delusional soul!
    Welcome to pseudoscience once again!
     
  10. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Say what you want.

    I have not submitted this and if they denied it, then they are crackpots since they cannot refute it.

    But, this is small and nothing that I would pursue except in a forum.

    Anyway, I am glad you finally confess that you have exhausted your resources just like RPenner.

    The conclusions of this Op stand.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846


    You really need to stop putting words into other people's mouths...again you lie...again you are most certainly wrong....and again you are in pseudoscience where you should be with Santa Claus and the other crackpots!

    Take it easy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. 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.


    That validated conclusion stands.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    First off, we were considering a space of only light flashes.

    Either way though, according to the Minkowski metric, x!=0, d(x,0) = 0 for light pulses. In a valid space with continuity, d(x,y) = 0 iff x = y.

    Clearly, x != 0 yet d(x,0) = 0 for any point on a light ray. Hence, Minkowski space-time contradicts the rules of a metric space.

    Does any of your "research" prove Minkowski space-time is a metric space and has global continuity like our real space in nature?

    Let me know when you figure out Minkowski space-time violates the 2 necessary conditions above for a valid space of nature.

    Hence, the OP stands.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    Only one person thinks that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    All sane humans accept what observational and experimental evidence has shown since 2005...that is SR/GR are correct as formulated by the great man, with no parodox.
     
  15. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I am not sure what you are talking about but, Minkowski space time is not a metric space.

    So, it is not a space of nature.

    Now, if you can refute that then do it.

    Otherwise, what is your point?
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846


    You'll excuse me if I accept a more reputable explanation of it.......


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



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





    Now, if you can refute that then do it.


    Otherwise, what is your point?[/QUOTE]


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



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


    Now if you are able to logically refute that then do it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I assume your article is claiming Minkowski is a vector space.

    We do not live in strictly a vector space. We have notions of distance when 2 vectors are not equal and we also have notions of continuity in the space of nature.

    Your support posts do not indicate this is true of Minkowski space.

    Come back when you have articles proving the Minkowski space is a valid metric space and possesses global continuity like our space of nature.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846



    I'm certain you can read, even with the burden of your paranoid fixation.
     
  19. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You did not answer the question.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    I try and avoid trolls and those with fanatical bias.
    Your question has been answered post 33.
    Obviously the answer invalidates your ideas so you subsequently ignore.
     
  21. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You have been given ample time to prove Minkowski is a valid continuous space.

    You have failed.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846


    That's OK....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I can live with being told I have failed by a "would be if he could be " and general crackpot....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    ou have been given ample time to prove Minkowski is a valid continuous space.

    You have failed.
     

Share This Page