What's wrong with me answering unjust criticisms and tailoring my response so it becomes understandable to this audience?
You and Tach both seem to be doing the same thing in that you ignore when I (or Guest) say something which demonstrates beyond high school understanding and try to pretend we don't know what we're talking about.
You asked about Newton's laws in a covariant manner and I went into details on geodesics to answer you. Rather than acknowledge that you decide to try to insult me by calling me thick (ie saying that YouTube link is to bring things down to my level) because I didn't pay much attention to you.
You mistake apathy and disinterest for ignorance. If I gave every crank I've ever come across my full attention I'd never do anything else, there's so many of them.
That's
your view. Such a description would be classed as using 'weasel words' on Wikipedia, as you insert your opinion as to the worth of something you came up with, regardless of what anyone else has to say.
but you couldn't discern its validity.
Yes yes, you're over everyone's head
With one extraordinarily superficial look at my paper, you immediately jumped to the conclusion you wanted and then attacked me ferociously.
Like I said previously, a classic sign of a crank is someone who presents their work on forums, not journals. If you're so good and your work so 'valid' and 'flawless' (your words) then you should have been able to get it published. Instead you're here and like all cranks whining there's some kind of conspiracy or defence of orthodoxy holding you back, rather than any issues your claims have.
Also I've gauged your questions and responses somewhat. I replied to you right at the beginning of the thread to answer what reason there is that Lorentz transforms are linear, which suggested you're unfamiliar with Lorentz transforms' formalisation. They are linear in the sense I just explained to Tach in regards to inner product invariance. Vectors exist in a vector space, space-time is equipped with a metric (Newtonian or Lorentzian, doesn't matter which you prefer) and has a complete basis. Thus we're working in a Hilbert space and operators on elements work by linear actions, ie $$L(a\mathbf{v}+b\mathbf{w}) = aL(\mathbf{v}) + bL(\mathbf{w})$$. Lorentz transformations are linear in that sense, acting on elements of the tangent space of space-time, so the rotation of the sum of two vectors is equal to the sum of the rotations of the vectors, that sort of thing.
Composing Lorentz transforms or adding non-transformed vectors to transformed ones, say something like $$\mathbf{v} \to L(\mathbf{v} + L(L(\mathbf{v} + L(\mathbf{v})))$$ is still a linear operation, the expression is still linear in $$\mathbf{v}$$. The transformations themselves, L, might be non-linear in terms of their parameters. For instance, a Lorentz boost by velocity V, $$L_{V}$$ does not satisfy $$L_{V}(L_{V'}(\mathbf{v})) = L_{V+V'}(\mathbf{v})(\mathbf{v}))$$, the relativistic velocity formula applies, $$L_{V}(L_{V'}) = L_{\frac{V+V'}{\sqrt{1+VV'}}}$$. Rotations can be linear in this regard, if you work only in an abelian subgroup, like an SO(2) subgroup which satisfies $$L_{\theta}L_{\theta'} = L_{\theta+\theta'}$$.
Then you asked about Newton's laws and I gave a lengthy answer only for you to ask a question which suggested you didn't understand the response.
To that ferocity you added outrageous misrepresentation and slander. Why aren't you hiding in shame?
Oh no, I was a little bit rude to someone, how shameful.
Like I said, if you don't like responses on forums then don't post your work. Go to a journal instead so you can get feedback from people whose job it is to know relativity inside out, if you don't think I'm up to it. But I imagine you already have and you didn't like the answer, so you ended up pushing it on forums and if Brucep's right you've been doing this for
years. Clearly even years of you harping on about about your 'flawless' work has gotten you nowhere, another 10 minutes of my time wouldn't have helped you.
You are a disgrace to science.
You want professionalism go to a reputable journal or university. I've done reviewing in the past and I did it in a professional manner, as there's rule of etiquette for journals but this isn't a journal and I'm not here in a professional capacity. Forums are entertainment for me, not work and if someone is pushing their 'flawless work' here then it means that they've already been turned down by people whose job it is to review papers or that they haven't bothered to submit it. Either way it raises serious questions as to the worth of their work and their attitude to viable science.
Just as I don't come here to be a professional journal reviewer I don't expect anyone else to either, hence why none of my work (and likewise for the other people on these forums with research published) I post here for 'review'.
You are simply not credible in anything you say.
Ah, because I didn't give you enough attention I'm completely uncredible.
Perhaps if
you had not represented yourself as correcting the mistakes of all of theoretical physics with your 'flawless' work, ie acted a little more professionally and displaying some humility, I might have been more accommodating but when someone opens with claims of flawless work and how all of physics is some kind of group think orthodoxy I immediately think "This person has no clue as to how to present their work or how the research community works". Even the best physicists in the mainstream wouldn't regard work as 'flawless' before peer review (or even after), everyone makes mistakes. Peer review is about exposing flaws so people can repair them, presenting your work as 'flawless' demonstrates you've already made up your mind about your own work (and its always easy to convince yourself of your own preconceptions....) and yet you complain about mainstream orthodoxy!
Tell me, how many years have you been pushing your work? Which journals have you submitted it to and what did they say?