You, Alphaneumetric, are a lying hypocrite when you tauntingly write of the lack of such demonstration. You are a lying hypocrite because you would be, as you have already been, eagerly the one to throw the first stone when someone has submitted such an alleged demonstration.
I have yet to see anyone use Lorentz transformations to examine the system described a few posts up to illustrate their claim special relativity has a contradiction. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate special relativity has a contradiction
at all.
How am I a lying hypocrite for stating a fact? Yes, it's a fact a lot of people can't accept but its a fact none-the-less.
However, in this forum, a post that presents such a demonstration lasts for one minute, or two at the most, before getting canned and deep sixed by the site goons.
Anyone how has such evidence shouldn't be posting it on forums, they should be submitting it to a journal. Mathematical proof special relativity is inconsistent would be HUGE. Journals would
love to have something like that, if correct, because it would be one of the most cited papers in history.
Anyone who 'publishes' original work on a forum is automatically illustrating hack behaviour. Anyone with decent work can submit it to a journal. If an article can't stand up on its own then its not valid or not sufficiently well developed.
What you haven't figured out yet is that they have you pegged as a real good mather. You are going to be their computer.
You don't know what that means. During the first half of the 1900s, before the advent of electric computers, people with a natural talent to easily do complex math were prized as being "computers".
In the Manhattan project Feynman, the guy who did the nuclear physics, used dozens of secretaries as his make-shift computer. He worked out the theory and then gave it to someone who didn't understand the theory but could do simple things like add two numbers or square root or multiple. Put them together in the right order, which Feynman also worked out, and you have a very simple algorithm hardwired into your 'computer'.
The syndrome was: little or no creative ability, often IQ below average, but an instinctive ability to do prodigeous math calculation in their head. Idiot savants. Physicists in charge of the creative thrust of important projects had to have idiot savants to carry out the maths.
Ah, so the fact I'm good at mathematics means I have little or not creative ability and possibly a below average IQ? Wow, you got that all from the fact I don't accept baseless claims and without knowing me or having any knowledge about any of my work. My thesis was done with almost no help from my supervisor, not a single result came from her. I have a paper I write entirely myself, which makes absolutely no use of a computer in any way.
You make the mistake of thinking that because I'm good at physics and mathematics I must therefore be good at nothing but 'idiot savant' number crunching. Tell you what, rather than you making up your own little imaginary narrative for people you don't know and their work, which you also don't know, why don't you spend your time writing up a clear, coherent and airtight proof to the inconsistency of special relativity and submit it to a journal. You know, put your physics where your mouth is. I'll go toe to toe with anyone when it comes to the areas of maths and physics I claim to know about, I have nothing to hide. I have original published work in peer reviewed respected journals. All the special relativity nay-sayers in this and other threads don't. Many talk about working on some amazing model of everything but nothing ever materialises and they never put their physics where their mouth is.
I don't apologise for actually knowing things. Knowledge isn't a dirty word or a disease, you shouldn't shy away from it. The fact you try to insult me for actually being good at something, something so many hacks here wish they were good at but aren't, is laughable.