Space-time is a reality

[Pete]

chinglu has been given a 3 day ban for continued trolling in Physics and Maths.

 

[rpenner]

chinglu has been given a 3 day ban for continued trolling in Physics and Maths.

Because the thread was not locked, I assume that the moderator embraces the hope that chinglu's later posts can rise above the level of trolling, and so I post in the shared hope that chinglu will actually meet acceptable levels of argument.

You keep running on the burden thing.

If you are debating evidence-based, logic-based or philosophically-based arguments, you must understand that someone who advocates an idea, especially an idea running counter to 150 years of evidentiary support or 100 years of precision predictive successes, bears the burden of giving readers a reason to latch on and share the evidence, logic or philosophy that motivates the viewpoint of the writer and demonstrates its superiority to other opinions. This is called the burden of proof. In law there are rules about who has the burden of proof at each stage of the proceedings, but in informal discussions like the ones here, the person with the new, original, extraordinary or otherwise outrageous claim has the burden of proof.

If one claims there is a jade statue of George Washington worth four billion euros at the bottom of a well on the Duke of Grafton's estate, one is expected to explain such a purported fact could be known. If one claims to be the representative of France to the Vatican, one is expected to present documentation to that effect. If one claims to have a "license to kill," clear and convincing statutory authority for such a claim had better be presented pretty damn quick.

Likewise, if someone is proposing a scientific theory, the burden is to prove at a minimum that it is at least as good as the current state of the art which is the largest part of any new theory's burden of proof. If someone is proposing a widely accepted scientific theory is wrong, one has the burden to demonstrate that wrongness with the best evidence. (Remember when OPERA announced they had apparently measured faster than light neutrino's and it turned out to be their timing cable was loose enough to make it look like less time was required than their clock actually said? Any experiment or measurement can be screwed up and we don't throw out theories on mere suspicion.)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#In_public_discourse

In mathematics, if someone proposes a collection of definitions and axioms are inconsistent, one is not allowed to add additional definitions or axioms to demonstrate that inconsistency. (For example if I define 11 + 1 = 0, you aren't allowed to use 11 + 1 = 12 to contradict it for I may be talking about addition modulo 12. If I demonstrate every polynomial has a number of roots including multiplicity equal to the degree of the polynomial, you aren't allowed to object that complex or irrational numbers aren't "really" numbers. And you aren't allowed to try to redefine the terms I use.) That's because math doesn't respect external sources of authority but only internal authority of the axioms themselves.

In mathematics we do not appeal to authority, but rather you are responsible for what you believe.

"Mathematics on a Distant Planet" American Math Monthly 105 7: (1998) pp. 640–650.​

Of course if you have a burden of proof, you must also have the precise thing that you wish to claim. That would be a thesis statement, a hypothesis, a proposal or something similar. Often I find your claim to be vaguely described and since you tend to be indiscriminate in choosing which arguments to advance and display a shallow understanding of some of your purported authorities, I lack any basis to see that your physics and math opinions are formed for rational and communicable reasons. Perhaps this is part of the reason why forum moderators consider you to be trolling -- because your posts read like you don't understand anything about physics other than you hate relativity.
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/thesis-statements/

So, let's get specific. What is your definition of continuity along a light ray in the Minkowski space.

Why would I need one, since I am still waiting for you to define and support your thesis statement. But it's easy to see that in the Affine Space of Minkowski space any choice of two distinct events A and B separated by a null space-time interval gives rise to a light ray by affine transformation of the vector, thus the real numbers induce a Euclidean topology on the light ray and we have an intuitive definition of continuity. Further, since the Lorentz transform is linear and every point on the ray is expressible as $$A + k(B-A)$$ this topology is specifically preserved by the Lorentz transform.

Thus the set of all affine-generated rays is given by:
$$\textrm{Lines} = \left{ \mathcal{L} \quad | \quad \exists A \in \mathcal{M} \exists B \in \mathcal{M} \backslash \left{ A \right} \quad \mathcal{L} = \left{ X \in \mathcal{M} \quad | \quad \exists r \in \mathbb{R} \quad X = A + r (B - A) \right} \right}$$
And then the light-like affine-generalted rays are given by:
$$\textrm{LightLines} = \left{ \mathcal{R} \in \textrm{Lines} \quad | \quad \forall C \in \mathcal{R} \forall D \in \mathcal{R} \quad \left< C-D, \, C-D\right> = 0 \right} = \left{ \mathcal{R} \quad | \quad \exists A \in \mathcal{M} \exists B \in \mathcal{M} \quad A \neq B { \Large \wedge } \left< A-B, \, A-B \right> = 0 { \Large \wedge } \mathcal{R} = \left{ X \in \mathcal{M} \quad | \quad \exists r \in \mathbb{R} \quad X = A + r (B - A) \right} \right}$$

Or "A Light-like Line consists of all points X colinear with two distinct points in Minkowski space where they are light-like separated."

That is the reason why the Minkowski space must be Hausdorf.

If the light-like line can be given a Euclidean topology via invertible mapping between the ray $$\mathcal{R}$$ and the real numbers $$\mathbb{R}$$ why do you now require that the manifold be a $$T_2$$ space. Why, specifically, would a $$T_1$$ space not be acceptable topology? Why is the Euclidean topology induced by mapping open sets of $$\mathbb{R}^4$$ not good enough, in your view? Why is the Zeeman topology which is also Hausdorff not good enough, in your view? (The Zeeman topology induces the Euclidean topology on space-like slices and time-like lines.) Why is the Hawking-King-McCarthy topology not good enough in your view?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004093836790033X
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jmp/17/2/10.1063/1.522874

Once you fail to produce a definition,

But I did produce a definition of continuity along a ray of light. It wasn't hard.

tyhen perhaps you will understand any reasonable person would demand a definition of continuity in a "natural space".

I don't know what you mean by "natural space".

Next, a time slice of concentric light spheres in the rest frame does not produce a set of concentric light spheres in the moving frame.

You have misstated a basic algebraic observation on the Lorentz transform, so perhaps this failure to do algebra has tarnished your reputation in the eyes of the moderator. You have not responded to the math in [post=3101532]post #41 in another thread[/post] which proves that the Lorentz transform preserves the Lorentzian dot product and therefore it follows trivially that spherical light cones transform into spherical light cones under the Lorentz transform.

You claim the relativity of simultaneity justifies this.

I claimed that the Lorentz transform of a hypersurface of "now" is a hypersurface which is not parallel to the original and thus is analogous to a slanted plane. In Eucldean geometry if you slice a cone with a slanted surface you get an ellipse, not a circle, but in Minkowski geometry it is clear that what looks like a space-time ellipsoid with parts happening "before" and "after" has a corresponding standard of rest by which all parts happen simultaneously and length contraction in that frame is exactly what is needed to make the space-time ellipsoid a perfect simultaneous sphere. Thus all space-like hyperplanes intersect a light cone in sphere. I may have claimed that your inability to either calculate or visualize the math of special relativity has left you unable to grasp this core idea of relativity.

However, the LT's are supposed to mirror the actual physical reality of the moving frame. Yet, the LT's do not produce a set of concentric light spheres in the moving frame and therefore, LT does not mirror the physical reality of the moving frame given any time interval in the rest frame.

Demonstrating this would advance your cause, contradict 100 years of mathematicians and physicists including my cited post #41 above. But you have not demonstrated this, and so have failed to carry your burden. This is also completely unrelated to your claims about topology.

Now, of course, you can parrot the relativity of simultaneity all you want,

Relativity of simultaneity is not an axiom of special relativity, but a theorem derived from the axioms of relativity. So as you seem to not only not understand special relativity but are actively denying its consequences, you display animosity towards special relativity (and me!) but no rational argument. You communicate no reason to distrust a subject you haven't bothered to learn.

but the moving frame only views concentric light spheres and does not see the relativity of simultaneity.

No single inertial frame ever sees any relativistic effect, so your point is unclear.

So you parroting is worthless.

Your use of the term "parroting" has not been demonstrated. Your claim of "worthless" ignores your role in being a backwards student -- one who makes up his mind about what he will not learn and sets about criticizing those who would dare expend effort to teach. But the fact remains is that I have a working theory of free particles:
$$E^2 - (\vec{p}c)^2 = (mc^2)^2 \\ E \vec{v} = c^2 \vec{p}$$
while you only have pointless objections to physics.

This proves SR does not correctly produce the physical reality of the moving frame and is therefore a false theory.

See, you stopped to insult me so much that "this" no longer means what you meant it to mean. That's an example of "unclear antecedent". Presumably you mean your baseless, mathless and unsupported claim about how the Lorentz transform does not map light cones to light cones is supposed to demonstrated that SR is incorrect, but you only advertise your incompetence at physics rather than to disturb the last 150 years of precision experiment.

So far you have attacked special relativity many times. Many of your claims are mathematical in nature, but not one is correct. Many of your claims are philosophical in nature, but not one is more persuasive than "it doesn't seem good enough to me" which is sterile ground. Thus people assume because you have communicated no rational reason to call into question SR (within its domain of applicability as an approximation of GR) people are going to assume you have only irrational reasons to question SR. We already know SR is different from Euclidean geometry but a clear principle of science requires us to favor the theory that best described the behavior of phenomena. Here SR is clearly a better theory of space and time than Newtonian and Euclidean notions -- it works better.

So some advice to you: Be honest. If you don't understand math, say so. If you don't understand a work, ask a question. Don't go scouting around on Wikipedia or (shudder) vixra to try and find a factoid to copy. That type of shallow understanding cannot serve you well in this discussion.

Now the moderator has granted you the gift of time. Use a text editor and perfect your reasoning, your arguments, your civility and your math. And when you come back, present your final and best case and have done with it. Support all your claims. Cite what references you find persuasive. Don't cripple your argument by assuming people know you are alluding to a post somewhere on the Internet -- cite it specifically and quote the necessary part if it's important. And don't just quote the text of my posts -- that's not discussion -- that's just noise when you don't respond to my points.

 

[eram]

I assume that the moderator embraces the hope that chinglu's later posts can rise above the level of trolling, and so I post in the shared hope that chinglu will actually meet acceptable levels of argument.

Pete always keeps his hopes high, alas, it is hardly worthwhile.

someone who advocates an idea...running counter to 150 years of evidentiary support or 100 years of precision predictive successes, bears the burden of giving readers a reason to latch on and share...the viewpoint of the writer

Agreed, that is a must, and it is no easy task.

In mathematics, if someone proposes a collection of definitions and axioms are inconsistent, one is not allowed to add additional definitions or axioms to demonstrate that inconsistency. Often I find your claim to be vaguely described and...I lack any basis to see that your physics and math opinions are formed for rational and communicable reasons.

@chinglu I too, fail to see any reasoning other than that of a raving loon with deficit analytical and critical thinking skills.


chinglu, how did you pick up this anti-relativistism, and why do you persist in it?

 

[chinglu]

Because the thread was not locked, I assume that the moderator embraces the hope that chinglu's later posts can rise above the level of trolling, and so I post in the shared hope that chinglu will actually meet acceptable levels of argument.
If you are debating evidence-based, logic-based or philosophically-based arguments, you must understand that someone who advocates an idea, especially an idea running counter to 150 years of evidentiary support or 100 years of precision predictive successes, bears the burden of giving readers a reason to latch on and share the evidence, logic or philosophy that motivates the viewpoint of the writer and demonstrates its superiority to other opinions. This is called the burden of proof. In law there are rules about who has the burden of proof at each stage of the proceedings, but in informal discussions like the ones here, the person with the new, original, extraordinary or otherwise outrageous claim has the burden of proof.

If one claims there is a jade statue of George Washington worth four billion euros at the bottom of a well on the Duke of Grafton's estate, one is expected to explain such a purported fact could be known. If one claims to be the representative of France to the Vatican, one is expected to present documentation to that effect. If one claims to have a "license to kill," clear and convincing statutory authority for such a claim had better be presented pretty damn quick.

Likewise, if someone is proposing a scientific theory, the burden is to prove at a minimum that it is at least as good as the current state of the art which is the largest part of any new theory's burden of proof. If someone is proposing a widely accepted scientific theory is wrong, one has the burden to demonstrate that wrongness with the best evidence. (Remember when OPERA announced they had apparently measured faster than light neutrino's and it turned out to be their timing cable was loose enough to make it look like less time was required than their clock actually said? Any experiment or measurement can be screwed up and we don't throw out theories on mere suspicion.)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#In_public_discourse

In mathematics, if someone proposes a collection of definitions and axioms are inconsistent, one is not allowed to add additional definitions or axioms to demonstrate that inconsistency. (For example if I define 11 + 1 = 0, you aren't allowed to use 11 + 1 = 12 to contradict it for I may be talking about addition modulo 12. If I demonstrate every polynomial has a number of roots including multiplicity equal to the degree of the polynomial, you aren't allowed to object that complex or irrational numbers aren't "really" numbers. And you aren't allowed to try to redefine the terms I use.) That's because math doesn't respect external sources of authority but only internal authority of the axioms themselves.

"Mathematics on a Distant Planet" American Math Monthly 105 7: (1998) pp. 640–650.​

Of course if you have a burden of proof, you must also have the precise thing that you wish to claim. That would be a thesis statement, a hypothesis, a proposal or something similar. Often I find your claim to be vaguely described and since you tend to be indiscriminate in choosing which arguments to advance and display a shallow understanding of some of your purported authorities, I lack any basis to see that your physics and math opinions are formed for rational and communicable reasons. Perhaps this is part of the reason why forum moderators consider you to be trolling -- because your posts read like you don't understand anything about physics other than you hate relativity.
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/thesis-statements/

Why would I need one, since I am still waiting for you to define and support your thesis statement. But it's easy to see that in the Affine Space of Minkowski space any choice of two distinct events A and B separated by a null space-time interval gives rise to a light ray by affine transformation of the vector, thus the real numbers induce a Euclidean topology on the light ray and we have an intuitive definition of continuity. Further, since the Lorentz transform is linear and every point on the ray is expressible as $$A + k(B-A)$$ this topology is specifically preserved by the Lorentz transform.

Thus the set of all affine-generated rays is given by:
$$\textrm{Lines} = \left{ \mathcal{L} \quad | \quad \exists A \in \mathcal{M} \exists B \in \mathcal{M} \backslash \left{ A \right} \quad \mathcal{L} = \left{ X \in \mathcal{M} \quad | \quad \exists r \in \mathbb{R} \quad X = A + r (B - A) \right} \right}$$
And then the light-like affine-generalted rays are given by:
$$\textrm{LightLines} = \left{ \mathcal{R} \in \textrm{Lines} \quad | \quad \forall C \in \mathcal{R} \forall D \in \mathcal{R} \quad \left< C-D, \, C-D\right> = 0 \right} = \left{ \mathcal{R} \quad | \quad \exists A \in \mathcal{M} \exists B \in \mathcal{M} \quad A \neq B { \Large \wedge } \left< A-B, \, A-B \right> = 0 { \Large \wedge } \mathcal{R} = \left{ X \in \mathcal{M} \quad | \quad \exists r \in \mathbb{R} \quad X = A + r (B - A) \right} \right}$$

Or "A Light-like Line consists of all points X colinear with two distinct points in Minkowski space where they are light-like separated."

If the light-like line can be given a Euclidean topology via invertible mapping between the ray $$\mathcal{R}$$ and the real numbers $$\mathbb{R}$$ why do you now require that the manifold be a $$T_2$$ space. Why, specifically, would a $$T_1$$ space not be acceptable topology? Why is the Euclidean topology induced by mapping open sets of $$\mathbb{R}^4$$ not good enough, in your view? Why is the Zeeman topology which is also Hausdorff not good enough, in your view? (The Zeeman topology induces the Euclidean topology on space-like slices and time-like lines.) Why is the Hawking-King-McCarthy topology not good enough in your view?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004093836790033X
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jmp/17/2/10.1063/1.522874

But I did produce a definition of continuity along a ray of light. It wasn't hard.
I don't know what you mean by "natural space".

You have misstated a basic algebraic observation on the Lorentz transform, so perhaps this failure to do algebra has tarnished your reputation in the eyes of the moderator. You have not responded to the math in [post=3101532]post #41 in another thread[/post] which proves that the Lorentz transform preserves the Lorentzian dot product and therefore it follows trivially that spherical light cones transform into spherical light cones under the Lorentz transform.

I claimed that the Lorentz transform of a hypersurface of "now" is a hypersurface which is not parallel to the original and thus is analogous to a slanted plane. In Eucldean geometry if you slice a cone with a slanted surface you get an ellipse, not a circle, but in Minkowski geometry it is clear that what looks like a space-time ellipsoid with parts happening "before" and "after" has a corresponding standard of rest by which all parts happen simultaneously and length contraction in that frame is exactly what is needed to make the space-time ellipsoid a perfect simultaneous sphere. Thus all space-like hyperplanes intersect a light cone in sphere. I may have claimed that your inability to either calculate or visualize the math of special relativity has left you unable to grasp this core idea of relativity.

Demonstrating this would advance your cause, contradict 100 years of mathematicians and physicists including my cited post #41 above. But you have not demonstrated this, and so have failed to carry your burden. This is also completely unrelated to your claims about topology.

Relativity of simultaneity is not an axiom of special relativity, but a theorem derived from the axioms of relativity. So as you seem to not only not understand special relativity but are actively denying its consequences, you display animosity towards special relativity (and me!) but no rational argument. You communicate no reason to distrust a subject you haven't bothered to learn.
No single inertial frame ever sees any relativistic effect, so your point is unclear.

Your use of the term "parroting" has not been demonstrated. Your claim of "worthless" ignores your role in being a backwards student -- one who makes up his mind about what he will not learn and sets about criticizing those who would dare expend effort to teach. But the fact remains is that I have a working theory of free particles:
$$E^2 - (\vec{p}c)^2 = (mc^2)^2 \\ E \vec{v} = c^2 \vec{p}$$
while you only have pointless objections to physics.

See, you stopped to insult me so much that "this" no longer means what you meant it to mean. That's an example of "unclear antecedent". Presumably you mean your baseless, mathless and unsupported claim about how the Lorentz transform does not map light cones to light cones is supposed to demonstrated that SR is incorrect, but you only advertise your incompetence at physics rather than to disturb the last 150 years of precision experiment.

So far you have attacked special relativity many times. Many of your claims are mathematical in nature, but not one is correct. Many of your claims are philosophical in nature, but not one is more persuasive than "it doesn't seem good enough to me" which is sterile ground. Thus people assume because you have communicated no rational reason to call into question SR (within its domain of applicability as an approximation of GR) people are going to assume you have only irrational reasons to question SR. We already know SR is different from Euclidean geometry but a clear principle of science requires us to favor the theory that best described the behavior of phenomena. Here SR is clearly a better theory of space and time than Newtonian and Euclidean notions -- it works better.

So some advice to you: Be honest. If you don't understand math, say so. If you don't understand a work, ask a question. Don't go scouting around on Wikipedia or (shudder) vixra to try and find a factoid to copy. That type of shallow understanding cannot serve you well in this discussion.

Now the moderator has granted you the gift of time. Use a text editor and perfect your reasoning, your arguments, your civility and your math. And when you come back, present your final and best case and have done with it. Support all your claims. Cite what references you find persuasive. Don't cripple your argument by assuming people know you are alluding to a post somewhere on the Internet -- cite it specifically and quote the necessary part if it's important. And don't just quote the text of my posts -- that's not discussion -- that's just noise when you don't respond to my points.

Obviously, I will have to take this up in pseudo.

 

[rpenner]

chinglu, Why would you have to quote ANY of my post (let alone all of it) to make a one-line non-reply like that?

Do you not respect your own words or your readers enough to care about how you conduct yourself on this forum?

 

[chinglu]

chinglu, Why would you have to quote ANY of my post (let alone all of it) to make a one-line non-reply like that?

Do you not respect your own words or your readers enough to care about how you conduct yourself on this forum?

I have a thread in pseudo responding to you.

Are you going to retreat?

 

[Pete]

chinglu seems to have given up on adhering to the standards of science, and has retreated to pseudoscience instead.
So be it.

rpenner, your last post but one is a diamond; I have plans to make it more visible somewhere.