So you admit all the stuff you've provided thus far isn't right? You have repeatedly said in the past that you have given 'proof' here and yet now you're saying we haven't seen what you're actually doing? Sounds like you're making excuses for your epic failures.
What are you talking about. I have not given my argument here.
Further, if what I have done is an epic failure, then go to my twins thread and indicate logically where it is wrong. Noone ever has anywhere.
You do not understand, but that is sufficient to take out SR. The logical decidability feature killed off reciprocal time dilation.
No, I wouldn't follow a theory which is contradictory with itself or experiment. That's not the same as requiring proof its consistent. I accept areas of mathematics like number theory and functional analysis and yet they are not proven consistent, they can't be proven consistent. But being unable to prove something consistent is not the same as it being inconsistent. You'd grasp this difference if you'd actually studied logic.
This shows your ignorance. Number theory has a model, they are called the natural numbers.
A theory is consistent iff it has a model.
There are non-standard models of number theory.
However, Godel showed number theory cannot prove all truths about the natural numbers even given an infinite number of axioms added.
Also, Godel proved any theory that contains number theory cannot prove its own consistency.
Hence, you must construct a model to prove consistency.
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic or you're just that stupid. You mention things like Godel's work and then complain about how it'd be silly to accept something which doesn't have proof its entirely consistent. The entire premise of Godel's work is you can have consistent logic systems which cannot prove themselves consistent or even proof every true statement true. Any sufficiently advanced area of mathematics (where 'sufficient' is in the sense Godel used it) cannot be proven consistent but this doesn't mean they are inconsistent. Your lack of understanding once again is made clear. You should really learn not to throw around concepts you don't understand, it only makes it easier for people to point out your ignorance and lies.
Excellent, you have arrived at the conclusion that SR is not self consistent.
I see you are still confused confused about syntax and semantics. Syntax is the formal language you would use for your proof.
Here is the a corollary to 2nd incompleteness theorm.
This corollary of the second incompleteness theorem shows that there is no hope of proving, for example, the consistency of Peano arithmetic using any finitistic means that can be formalized in a theory the consistency of which is provable in Peano arithmetic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
Now, this does not mean Peano arithmatic cannot be proven consistent. You just cannot use the first order predicate calculus to do it.
You must prove its consistency by showing it has a model. This is semantics.
This was a deep step since Godel cut off Hilbert's program where Hilbert thought everthing could simply be proven by some formal language.
So, humans needed a new way to "prove" consistency.
The completenes theorem achieved this objective and gave to humanity a new method to prove consistency when proof theory fails.
You mean other than my repeated demonstration Lorentz transforms map light spheres to light spheres, that light cones depend only on their apex and not any given frame, that Lorentz transformations are defined on vectors not coordinates, that you don't need (or nor even can allow) time to pass 'before' applying a Lorentz transformation (in fact such a notion is mathematically meaningless in this context).
You never mapped the stationary light sphere to the moving one. You tried and I broke you and rpenner's failed proof.
You did not satisfy the requirement that light is a constant distance r in the view of the moving frame.
Here is a hint on consistency and models.
You must show a model such that if the two origins are on light phones after a light emission when the origins are co-located and each would say to the other, light is a constant distance from the origin.
You then need to show this model satisfies both postulates.
No, other than the dozens of posts covering and explaining all of those things I haven't refuted your work
. Shall I link to them
again, since this is not the first time you've simply flat out lied and claimed no one has replied to your maths. Your behaviour goes far beyond naivety, you repeatedly lie to people about posts they've made! Do you think I don't remember what I've said to you? Do you think everyone such as myself, Pete, Rpenner, James etc don't remember we've posted tons and tons of mathematics which you never replied to and demonstrate you don't even understand? You must be knowingly lying because the only other explanations involve severe brain damage and an inability to form memories (ala Memento) or some kind of split personality who doesn't remember what the other has read. You know and I know I've replied to your mathematics. You know and I know you've not only failed to retort it but you've failed to even understand it. And you know and I know you're lying when you claim otherwise.
Let's see the twins refutation you did not refute. You also assume if I did not respond you refuted me. Many times I simply do not respond because your answer is so silly.
Anyway, refute the twins argument. You never achieved that.
You're wrong in perhaps two different ways. If Godel's work applies to Minkowski geometry then if there existed a proof it were consistent then it'd be inconsistent and thus you'd be right. The second way is that I don't need to jump through your hoops to prove you wrong, any logically valid method is fine and you've been presented with retorts and responses to all your claims and repeatedly been demonstrated to be wrong. You only start new threads like this when you're backed into yet another corner in a particular thread and you think you can wipe the slate clean by jumping to a new thread.
Wrong, you are all caught up in Hilbert's program and cannot understand the new ways.
Like I said, Godel proved a theory is consistent iff it has a model. So, you simply need a model to prove SR consistent.
For someone who claims to grasp logic sufficiently well to understand Godel's work you sure are terrible at it. You do realise that "I have proven it inconsistent" and "I have not proven it is consistent" are not synonymous.
More logic from the ancient Hilbert's program.
No, yet another example of your terrible grasp of logic. If you claim "Notion X is wrong because of reason Y" I do not need to prove Notion X or even assume it to demonstrate Y is not true. I didn't need to assume SR is true to disprove your claim Lorentz transformations don't map light spheres to light spheres. I needed the definition of a Lorentz transformation and the definition of a light sphere. Whether or not those two concepts later lead to a contradiction is irrelevant to the retort of your claim because I only needed to show a light sphere is mapped to a light sphere by a Lorentz transformation, I did not need to show the remaining structure in SR true.
I only needed to show a light sphere is mapped to a light sphere by a Lorentz
OK, do this.
It will need to be a constant distance in the view of both frames. Everyone knows this is a sphere. Anything produced that is not a constant distance from the origin will not be a sphere.
Also, you will need to indicate a time in the stationary system when that occurs because if it is true, there must be a time when it is true.
Otherwise, there is no time when it is true.
Let me know how you do.
