Here is the last time I pointed out you've been given the mathematics many times by myself (and others), all of which you've failed to retort and just as this thread you say things like "I accept that" or "I understand that" and then go on to completely contradict it, demonstrating you
don't.
This is your typical attitude, you try to pretend you have some amazing grasp of maths and logic and you're 'helping' other people with things they've never done. Special relativity is actually mathematically very simple once you know vector calculus and linear algebra, both of which are required for any decent physicist. You're not discussing difficult topics, you're discussing things 1st years get given for homework and despite you wanting to come across as well educated in it, you're very very bad at it. I honestly don't think you could pass the 1st year special relativity course I've taught in times gone by.
Please stop pretending you're competent at logic and mathematical proofs, you can't even use the words properly.
Thanks for demonstrating you
didn't understand Rpenner's post, even though you said otherwise (just like you never understood my posts on fibre bundles but you lie and say you did). He used
differences in space-time location, not an absolute space-time location. Again, this is the sort of thing covered in the simplest of SR courses as its basically the concept of a space-time interval without the student needing to know about line elements.
Just as you fail to retort anything anyone says which involves mathematics? I just linked to all the mathematical posts of mine which you failed to reply to or lied about understanding. The 'fraud' here is your unwillingness to accept you might not grasp basic relativity as well as you believe, you're willingness to flat out
lie (such as when you
demand mathematics you've been provided with just posts before) and your willingness to pretend you know things you do not. Your unwillingness to accept there's other Higgs mechanism effects other than the Higgs boson and even after I provided you with links to papers on it you proclaimed I was wrong.
No, having a basic standard for informed discussion and honesty isn't about 'superiority'. Science got where it has because is asks people to justify their claims, to present their work for review by others and to constantly test models as new understanding and technology allows. We're asking you to have a minimal level of honesty, open mindedness and willingness to put in a bit of effort to learn. This is nothing I wouldn't expect from people like Rpenner, Ben, Pete and myself. Deliberate wilful ignorance is one of the things which
immediately riles me and you have it in spades. If you can't meet basic standards for honest informed discussion then why are you on these forums? Why are you even pretending you're doing something honest and scientific?
Yes, you fail to meet the standards expected of scientists and mathematicians. That isn't our fault for having standards, its your fault for being intellectually dishonest and wilfully ignorant.
You have nothing but opinion. Rpenner has provided all that needs to be said. I've previously walked you through the mathematics of Lorentz transformations in many different ways. You haven't tried to understand them, from months ago, why should we expect you'll be less dishonest now?
Do you think Lorentz transforms don't map an expanding photon sphere to an expanding photon sphere? If you don't then there's no point in us engaging you in discussion on a new topic when you've not managed to grasp one from 6 months ago.
Like the other 50 times we've done it.
You didn't accept all the other times we provided mathematics and logic you were wrong. You simply stuck to your
opinion.
This your imaginary audience who are even worse at basic mathematics than you? Because that's the only people you can possibly hope to sucker as anyone who didn't sleep through high school calculus will see how you're incorrect. There's nothing difficult here, just multiplying matrices.
Your lies are very transparent.
No, it contains things you don't understand. What Rpenner said is well known basic stuff in special relativity. You constantly make it clear that for all your claims about being familiar with these topics you haven't read a single lecture course or textbook on the subject because you're unfamiliar with basic concepts or notation. You can't use the word 'proof' properly, indicating you haven't read
anything which actually does proper proofs. You are unfamiliar with $$\Delta x$$ notation, which is standard in any SR material. You think the SM involves gravitons and the Higgs involves gravitatonal mass. All of these demonstrate you're not arguing from a position of knowledge but one of ignorance.
This thread isn't going to go anywhere, Jack is incapable of a discussion on something as simple as mathematics of SR. If he can't do anything other than say "Lets do maths and logic, not opinions" and then
refuse to do any mathematics (even when others have) then he's failing to meet his own criteria. This is just like last time, he demands mathematical posts, people provide and then he fails to respond or discuss. He's got no interest in being honest, the thread should be locked.
