Can someone help?

[Pete]

I am trying to learn.

These are very very smart people.

Then why ao antagonistic?
Why do you always present the attitude that you're right, and they're wrong?
Why do you feel the need to use terms you don't understand, and pretend you understand things you clearly don't?
If you don't understand something, why not just say so, instead of accusing people of things like "committing mathematical fraud"?

 

[Jack_]

Then why ao antagonistic?
Why do you always present the attitude that you're right, and they're wrong?
Why do you feel the need to use terms you don't understand, and pretend you understand things you clearly don't?
If you don't understand something, why not just say so, instead of accusing people of things like "committing mathematical fraud"?

I do not know what right and wrong means.

I do know if you do not reveal your domain in math and you write and equation and claim truth, you are committing mathematical fraud.

And, you attempt to measure me according to your standards. That would assert you claim superiority.

Finally, I clearly understand the subject I am discussing.

Do you have anyone around here that really understands mathematical logic and is "one of you", you know one of the body, one of the collective, one of the hive.

Then that person will teach all of you I am correct about what I am saying.

Otherwise, stop the opinions and lets function purely with logic and proof.

 

[Pete]

I do not know what right and wrong means.

I do know if you do not reveal your domain in math and you write and equation and claim truth, you are committing mathematical fraud.

And, you attempt to measure me according to your standards. That would assert you claim superiority.

Finally, I clearly understand the subject I am discussing.

Do you have anyone around here that really understands mathematical logic and is "one of you".

Then that person will teach all of you I am correct about what I am saying.

Otherwise, stop the opinions and lets function purely with logic and proof.

That attitude is precisely why you'll never grow, Jack. Sad.
There are several Sciforums posters who understand mathematical logic much better than you, including (but to limited to) AlphaNumeric, rpenner, BenTheMan, Trippy, JamesR, Dwyddyr, przyk...

They all agree that you're incorrect about what you're saying. Have you tried considering the possibility that they might be right?

Why so antagonistic? Why not open up to possibilities of learning?

 

[Jack_]

That attitude is precisely why you'll never grow, Jack. Sad.
There are several Sciforums posters who understand mathematical logic much better than you, including (but to limited to) AlphaNumeric, rpenner, BenTheMan, Trippy, JamesR, Dwyddyr, przyk...

They all agree that you're incorrect about what you're saying. Have you tried considering the possibility that they might be right?

Why so antagonistic? Why not open up to possibilities of learning?

Oh, my attitude is so bad.

Can you and your folk refute the OP mathematically yes or no.

You simply prove my assertions are fale and everyone will laugh at me.

Would that not make you happy?

So, you and your folk simply bring up a case where the OP is false and you are home free.

If you cannot or close the thread, folks watching will know it is correct.

 

[Pete]

Oh, my attitude is so bad.

Yes

Can you and your folk refute the OP mathematically yes or no.

There's no problem in the OP to refute. As rpenner demonstrated, it's a special case of a more general conclusion of special relativity.

You simply prove my assertions are false and everyone will laugh at me.
Would that not make you happy?

It makes me sad. It makes me happy when people grow and learn. The same goes for other educators here, like AlphaNumeric.

Don't be afraid of being wrong, Jack. No one will laugh at you for it.

 

[Jack_]

Yes

There's no problem in the OP to refute. As rpenner demonstrated, it's a special case of a more general conclusion of special relativity.

It makes me sad. It makes me happy when people grow and learn. The same goes for other educators here, like AlphaNumeric.

Don't be afraid of being wrong, Jack. No one will laugh at you for it.

Trust me, I do not fear folks laughing at me.

Let me see if I have this straight for all of you.

My OP is a special case of some more general idea in SR.

Is this correct?

 

[James R]

Can you and your folk refute the OP mathematically yes or no.

Didn't you understand post #4?

Didn't that answer your question?

Anyway, it's a simple maths problem. You should be able to confirm or refute it on your own.

Why don't you do the maths and post it here so that we can see your final solution?

 

[Jack_]

Didn't you understand post #4?

Didn't that answer your question?

Yes, I totally understood #4.

Could you please indicate how the OP is false based On #4?

As Pete said, you are very smart and anyone reading this will understand.

Pete says it is a special case of a more general idea which make this OP true.

Further, did you understand the bound variable idea?

Perhaps rpenner can address this.

I do hope we proceed with math and logic don't you?


Otherwise, folks will see a thread closed not based on math but based on opinion.

If you are correct, rpenner will destroy me.

Let's see.

 

[James R]

Sorry, Jack_. I edited my post while you were posting your reply. Please read the modified version.

Yes, I totally understood #4.

Could you please indicate how the OP is false based On #4?

I didn't say it was false.

Post #4 is correct. Do you agree? Do you believe that post #4 is inconsistent with your OP?

As Pete said, you are very smart and anyone reading this will understand.

Pete says it is a special case of a more general idea which make this OP true.

Further, did you understand the bound variable idea?

I didn't pay much attention to the bound variable idea, because I think this problem is much simpler than that. What do you think?

I do hope we proceed with math and logic don't you?

Yeah, I sure hope so Jack_. I'll wait until you post your mathematical proof of your OP before I post any maths of my own.

If you are correct, rpenner will destroy me.

Correct about what?

I sure hope rpenner doesn't destroy you Jack_. You're too entertaining.

 

[Pete]

Trust me, I do not fear folks laughing at me.

That's good. So why do you fear being wrong?

Let me see if I have this straight for all of you.
My OP is a special case of some more general idea in SR.
Is this correct?

Yes, just as rpenner clearly said in post #4.

 

[Jack_]

Sorry, Jack_. I edited my post while you were posting your reply. Please read the modified version.



I didn't say it was false.

Post #4 is correct. Do you agree? Do you believe that post #4 is inconsistent with your OP?



I didn't pay much attention to the bound variable idea, because I think this problem is much simpler than that. What do you think?



Yeah, I sure hope so Jack_. I'll wait until you post your mathematical proof of your OP before I post any maths of my own.



Correct about what?

I sure hope rpenner doesn't destroy you Jack_. You're too entertaining.

OK, I am not really sure what rpenner what asserting by his post in #4.

It contained logical inconsistencies that I am still waiting for him to clear up.

But, your point is well taken.

I think it is on me to prove my case and not ask you folks to refute my math.

So, let me take the step.

I have been trying to with my bound variable factual logic.

Here is the proof.

http://www.proofofabsolutemotion.com/cinci2.pdf

Let's stay on the math and not the personalities.

 

[Jack_]

That's good. So why do you fear being wrong?


Yes, just as rpenner clearly said in post #4.

Math proof?

He did not refute the OP.

You just said he agreed with the OP as a special case. Which is it.

Now, if you do not admit to everyone you said he agreed with it as a special case, then you are a fraud.

I say we do math where everyone in the world can agree I am wrong of you all in the colletive are correct. Science would demand this.

That means all math proves one case or the other.

Now, if ξ² + η² + ς² = c² τ²*and ξ and τ are controlled by points selected from the stationary frame, are they free variables in the moving frame yes or no.

 

[James R]

Hi Jack_,

OK, I am not really sure what rpenner what asserting by his post in #4.

He proved that the spacetime interval is invariant.

But, your point is well taken.

I think it is on me to prove my case and not ask you folks to refute my math.

... Here is the proof.

http://www.proofofabsolutemotion.com/cinci2.pdf

Ok. I took a look. Your proof contained logical inconsistencies. I'll wait for you to clear them up.

 

[Pete]

OK, I am not really sure what rpenner what asserting by his post in #4.

Then why did you say that you "totally understood" it?

It contained logical inconsistencies that I am still waiting for him to clear up.

Where? You haven't pointed any out - you just diverged into a sidetrack about free and bound variables, quite unrelated to post #4.

 

[Jack_]

Hi Jack_,



He proved that the spacetime interval is invariant.



Ok. I took a look. Your proof contained logical inconsistencies. I'll wait for you to clear them up.[/QUOTE]

Yea? Like what?

I do not make the silly error of using bound variables as free variables as in post #4.

Can you please indicate why x' is a free variable in the domain of the moving frame when x is selected from the rest frame.

This would prove I am stupid if x' is free under those conditions.

 

[Jack_]

Then why did you say that you "totally understood" it?


Where? You haven't pointed any out - you just diverged into a sidetrack about free and bound variables, quite unrelated to post #4.

I totally understood the math but did not understand his objective since it achieved nothing.

You are wrong about free and bound variables and this indicates your lack of ability of logic.

So, rpenner banned me for this post.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26946

As we can see, rpenner could not refute the math and begged for help for any error.

Trout stepped in claiming to understand the problem.

Here I gave Trout appropriate training as to why he is wrong and by extension
s rpenner is wrong.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27150

If rpenner wants to debate this, he will be corrected.

Oh, I am qwtyu.

 

[James R]

Ok. I took a look. Your proof contained logical inconsistencies. I'll wait for you to clear them up.

Yea? Like what?

Well, the last sentence, in particular, doesn't follow from anything that went before.

I do not make the silly error of using bound variables as free variables as in post #4.

What's a bound variable and a free variable?

Can you please indicate why x' is a free variable in the domain of the moving frame when x is selected from the rest frame.

Not yet.

This would prove I am stupid if x' is free under those conditions.

Would it?

 

[Jack_]

Well, the last sentence, in particular, doesn't follow from anything that went before.



What's a bound variable and a free variable?



Not yet.



Would it?

Come on.

You should know a bound variable from a free variable.

A free variable is not restricted in any way from a domain.

A bound variable ...........

why am I teaching you all this? dont you folks know this?

 

[James R]

JacK_:

Come on.

You should know a bound variable from a free variable.

A free variable is not restricted in any way from a domain.

Does it matter here?

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the logical inconsistencies in your proof.

 

[Jack_]

JacK_:



Does it matter here?

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the logical inconsistencies in your proof.

Point taken.

Let's you and I review these so called logical inconsistencies.

But, let's stay on task with math only and without all of your emotion.

Can you do this?