reference: http://people.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/stanford/universe.html
Obviously you weren't because none of those cover the mathematics of equivalence relations, certainly not business and tax law. So at best you're mistaking something you've previously learnt for a mathematical concept it is not and at worst you're outright lying.
Actually for almost every case in reality $$E \neq mc^{2}$$ because the full expression is $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + |pc|^{2}$$ and since $$|p| \geq 0$$, with p=0 only for a stationary object, typically we don't have $$E=mc^{2}$$.
Why should anyone care what you think about a mathematical result, whose validity is based on rigorous logic and not uninformed opinion?
As James and I have been explaining, you obviously do not grasp what relativity says or does or the role of zero in mathematics so this repetition of this 'complaint' you have is daft.
It does nothing of the sort because what you're saying is nonsense. And 'equivalence relation' doesn't restrict itself to 'equals'. Two things can be mathematically related by an equivalence without being equal. Equivalence classes and relations are an enormously rich and vast area of mathematics, so much more than just 'equals'. Relative and absolute have nothing to do with it. Once again the issue is between your ears.
You haven't presented any logic, you've presented unjustified assertions typically phrased in a way which makes it clear you don't even know the meaning of the words you use. The question is whether you are saying that because you've deluded yourself or whether you're looking for a rise out of me. What's happened to you, you were at least vaguely lucid in the past, now you're making claims of an ever more ridiculous nature.
Spoken like a true crank.
You obviously don't read all the info. Firstly there's too much for a single person to read and secondly you have shown time and again you don't even know the meaning of basic terminology so even if you have read some you haven't grasped it. And thirdly not evey teacher of mathematics would agree with you given I have taught mathematics modules at university and I don't agree with you. Again, is your ridiculous hyperbole just trolling or do you honestly believe what you're saying?
Yes, yes, you're discovering fundamental truths about mathematics having read all about maths on Wikipedia
I bet you couldn't even do a simple question about equivalence relations though, just like Farsight claims to know more about quantum mechanics than Nobel Prize winning Dirac yet he cannot answer even the simplest quantitative question and provides nothing of any substance. It's always the way, someone sucks at something all the way through school but when they are not longer required to demonstrate knowledge and understanding in a clear manner suddenly they have all the answers. I really hope you're doing some kind of social experiment to see how wacko you can be before everyone calls you on it. The alternative is somewhat depressing.Well done on not even being able to use 'transitivity' and 'equivalence' properly in a sentence, illustrating you understand neither. Furthermore both James and I have explained, repeatedly, why this whole "It's being used as a universal reference frame!" is also nonsensical. Being incoherent doesn't make you insightful, it makes you incoherent. Believing yourself knowledgeable and informed when you cannot demonstrate it and you're being constantly corrected by people with demonstrable understanding and knowledge in the subject matter goes beyond incoherent.
But since you don't know relevant information about the mathematical concepts known as zero, equivalence relations, transitivity or reference frames, never mind their use in physical models, you have absolutely no idea what has been discovered/developed and what of that has been ignored or presumed inconsequential. For example, you go on to say
Actually it wasn't. If you'd really been reading all about maths use on Wikipedia you'd know the mathematical and logical knowledge of the Greeks and other ancient civilisations was extremely rudimentary compared to now. The concept of rigorously proving much of the properties of numbers and number systems didn't get developed until around the 1800s. Until then many things were taken as axiomatic when really they aren't. The axioms of logic and set theory weren't formalised into the rigorous structure they are now until the ZFC set theory or the Peano axioms. For example, Euclid assumed, in his 5th postulate, that parallel lines never cross. In many geometries this is false, hence why they are called Non-Euclidean. Again, you have no knowledge of how much mathematical logic there is and how much or little of it pre-dates the Renaissance.
Then you'd predict wrong.
Actually we have evidence for both, it's why we have to consider them. They aren't just mathematical artifacts, they relate to specific observed phenomena, namely universal expansion is accelerating (dark energy) and galaxy rotation curves are off (dark matter)
Either you're continuing to hammer at this 'relative zero' thing because you're a troll or an idiot. You've ignored multiple explanations of why you're mistaken about this "which zero?!" thing, so whether by malice or ignorance you're trolling.
False. It's just a Google away and you haven't bother. This just illustrates how all your "I've read...." stuff is not accurate, you clearly don't bother to find out any information before making your assertions.
All experimental evidence and also theoretically says special relativity is valid even in extreme circumstances. General relativity is not valid for extreme gravitational fields but that doesn't mean special relativity isn't. We don't have a quantum gravity model but all our current quantum field theories include special relativity and there's no experimental evidence against it. Do some damn reading.
Is it not fair to acknowledge that if one wishes to make assertions about something one doesn't know anything about that it's dishonest and stupid to just make things up without trying to find out any information about said thing?
No because one of the premises is false. Logic only tells you the implications of the axioms you feed into it. If you feed nonsense in you'll get nonsense out. For example : All men are green. Alan is a man. Therefore Alan is green. That is completely sound logic but obviously not correct in it's conclusions about the real world because one of the inputs, the axiom of all men being green, is not true. You feed in "SR doesn't work in extremes" and conclude something from that, that anything based on special relativity will also not work in such extremes. That is indeed logical, except the conclusion isn't necessarily true because you haven't demonstrated the input, that SR fails in extreme circumstances, to be true.
No, because the universe is filled with mass and energy and thus has warped space-time. Since special relativity doesn't relate to warped space-time it is the wrong model to use. If you use general relativity then you're using something appropriate. In addition we didn't 'calculate the mass of an entire universe', the expansion of the universe is measured using super novae and the calculation of how much space-time energy must be involved is done using that and general relativity. We trust the GR result because it is within the realm of GR's domain of applicability. We don't use GR to do quantum gravity calculations because we know it isn't appropriate. Knowing when you can trust a model is an essential thing for any physicist to know. You seem to think we don't consider such things, we do and you'd know that if you bothered to check. Yet more examples of how you are woefully uninformed about relevant things. Any rational person would stop making your ridiculous types of assertions.
We have no grounds on a theoretical level to say "SR has limits in extremes", unlike general relativity where it naturally provides examples where it does not work. Experimentally SR has held up against every experiment thrown at it. But we don't sit on our hands and assume it never needs to be checked again, there are physicists who devote their entire careers to exploring ways of testing and hopefully breaking mainstream models and there are theorists considering models which explain current results but disagree with special relativity. They too often provide experiments which could be done to check SR in some new area. Again, you'd know this if you bothered to check. Instead you make assumptions about physics and physicists.
gosh!.... well that was a waste of time wasn't it? I stopped reading about word 20.....Hope you enjoyed typing for what's his name....uhmmm Jack shit...Obviously you weren't because none of those cover the mathematics of equivalence relations, certainly not business and tax law. So at best you're mistaking something you've previously learnt for a mathematical concept it is not and at worst you're outright lying.
Actually for almost every case in reality $$E \neq mc^{2}$$ because the full expression is $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + |pc|^{2}$$ and since $$|p| \geq 0$$, with p=0 only for a stationary object, typically we don't have $$E=mc^{2}$$.
Why should anyone care what you think about a mathematical result, whose validity is based on rigorous logic and not uninformed opinion?
As James and I have been explaining, you obviously do not grasp what relativity says or does or the role of zero in mathematics so this repetition of this 'complaint' you have is daft.
It does nothing of the sort because what you're saying is nonsense. And 'equivalence relation' doesn't restrict itself to 'equals'. Two things can be mathematically related by an equivalence without being equal. Equivalence classes and relations are an enormously rich and vast area of mathematics, so much more than just 'equals'. Relative and absolute have nothing to do with it. Once again the issue is between your ears.
You haven't presented any logic, you've presented unjustified assertions typically phrased in a way which makes it clear you don't even know the meaning of the words you use. The question is whether you are saying that because you've deluded yourself or whether you're looking for a rise out of me. What's happened to you, you were at least vaguely lucid in the past, now you're making claims of an ever more ridiculous nature.
Spoken like a true crank.
You obviously don't read all the info. Firstly there's too much for a single person to read and secondly you have shown time and again you don't even know the meaning of basic terminology so even if you have read some you haven't grasped it. And thirdly not evey teacher of mathematics would agree with you given I have taught mathematics modules at university and I don't agree with you. Again, is your ridiculous hyperbole just trolling or do you honestly believe what you're saying?
Yes, yes, you're discovering fundamental truths about mathematics having read all about maths on Wikipedia
Well done on not even being able to use 'transitivity' and 'equivalence' properly in a sentence, illustrating you understand neither. Furthermore both James and I have explained, repeatedly, why this whole "It's being used as a universal reference frame!" is also nonsensical. Being incoherent doesn't make you insightful, it makes you incoherent. Believing yourself knowledgeable and informed when you cannot demonstrate it and you're being constantly corrected by people with demonstrable understanding and knowledge in the subject matter goes beyond incoherent.
But since you don't know relevant information about the mathematical concepts known as zero, equivalence relations, transitivity or reference frames, never mind their use in physical models, you have absolutely no idea what has been discovered/developed and what of that has been ignored or presumed inconsequential. For example, you go on to say
Actually it wasn't. If you'd really been reading all about maths use on Wikipedia you'd know the mathematical and logical knowledge of the Greeks and other ancient civilisations was extremely rudimentary compared to now. The concept of rigorously proving much of the properties of numbers and number systems didn't get developed until around the 1800s. Until then many things were taken as axiomatic when really they aren't. The axioms of logic and set theory weren't formalised into the rigorous structure they are now until the ZFC set theory or the Peano axioms. For example, Euclid assumed, in his 5th postulate, that parallel lines never cross. In many geometries this is false, hence why they are called Non-Euclidean. Again, you have no knowledge of how much mathematical logic there is and how much or little of it pre-dates the Renaissance.
It'd be a bit daft of me to claim to know what tax laws are ignored or considered inconsequential to someone I've never met, since I know neither them nor tax law. Yet you presume to know such things about science and scientists. Such an argument on your part is so ridiculous I can only conclude you're deliberately trolling.
Then you'd predict wrong.
Actually we have evidence for both, it's why we have to consider them. They aren't just mathematical artifacts, they relate to specific observed phenomena, namely universal expansion is accelerating (dark energy) and galaxy rotation curves are off (dark matter)
Either you're continuing to hammer at this 'relative zero' thing because you're a troll or an idiot. You've ignored multiple explanations of why you're mistaken about this "which zero?!" thing, so whether by malice or ignorance you're trolling.
False. It's just a Google away and you haven't bother. This just illustrates how all your "I've read...." stuff is not accurate, you clearly don't bother to find out any information before making your assertions.
All experimental evidence and also theoretically says special relativity is valid even in extreme circumstances. General relativity is not valid for extreme gravitational fields but that doesn't mean special relativity isn't. We don't have a quantum gravity model but all our current quantum field theories include special relativity and there's no experimental evidence against it. Do some damn reading.
Is it not fair to acknowledge that if one wishes to make assertions about something one doesn't know anything about that it's dishonest and stupid to just make things up without trying to find out any information about said thing?
No because one of the premises is false. Logic only tells you the implications of the axioms you feed into it. If you feed nonsense in you'll get nonsense out. For example : All men are green. Alan is a man. Therefore Alan is green. That is completely sound logic but obviously not correct in it's conclusions about the real world because one of the inputs, the axiom of all men being green, is not true. You feed in "SR doesn't work in extremes" and conclude something from that, that anything based on special relativity will also not work in such extremes. That is indeed logical, except the conclusion isn't necessarily true because you haven't demonstrated the input, that SR fails in extreme circumstances, to be true.
This is basic logic but it seems to have escaped you. Yet more reason for people not to trust what you claim you know.
No, because the universe is filled with mass and energy and thus has warped space-time. Since special relativity doesn't relate to warped space-time it is the wrong model to use. If you use general relativity then you're using something appropriate. In addition we didn't 'calculate the mass of an entire universe', the expansion of the universe is measured using super novae and the calculation of how much space-time energy must be involved is done using that and general relativity. We trust the GR result because it is within the realm of GR's domain of applicability. We don't use GR to do quantum gravity calculations because we know it isn't appropriate. Knowing when you can trust a model is an essential thing for any physicist to know. You seem to think we don't consider such things, we do and you'd know that if you bothered to check. Yet more examples of how you are woefully uninformed about relevant things. Any rational person would stop making your ridiculous types of assertions.
We have no grounds on a theoretical level to say "SR has limits in extremes", unlike general relativity where it naturally provides examples where it does not work. Experimentally SR has held up against every experiment thrown at it. But we don't sit on our hands and assume it never needs to be checked again, there are physicists who devote their entire careers to exploring ways of testing and hopefully breaking mainstream models and there are theorists considering models which explain current results but disagree with special relativity. They too often provide experiments which could be done to check SR in some new area. Again, you'd know this if you bothered to check. Instead you make assumptions about physics and physicists.
yep... nice picture, but it may be confusing the issue. I put it in as decoration... mainly...
You may recall poster MacM was constantly stating that SRT was a poorer verion of LRT.
Well done on showing you don't have the honesty to engage in discussion or listen when people correct you. If you have such a short attention span it is not surprising you know nothing about science or mathematics. I outlined how you are provably wrong in your claims but you don't read it because you're too intellectually lazy.
That you're dishonest, a liar and a hack.
Seeing as I've already addressed this but, by your own admission, you haven't got the attention span to read it I conclude you're trolling.
Your unwillingness to read an answer doesn't mean it isn't there. The world doesn't vanish when you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears. Do you think other people will not see I've addressed your mistakes and dishonesty?
call it what ever you want t= pink elephants will do just as well.... even if you call it t=27 what is the number 27 other than 27 greater than zero...?
Oh I agree entirely as zero space as per ZPT requires no substance other than expanded volume to actually function as zero space.
didn't rely on him then and certainly can't now...[deceased]
written like a true scientist....who doesnt follow the requirements of the scientific method... evidence to support your claims.
have you? well as I said I stopped readin at about word 20 and I must admit it is always difficult to take what you say seriously due to the incredible amount of time wastage due to your psychotic [compulsive] vitriolic ramblings...
You've already had it shown to you you don't know the definitions of relevant concepts. You've already had it shown to you your claim every maths teacher would agree with you is false. You've even admitted you don't read what people say to you. As such saying "I must accept it" is clearly an excuse for you to move the goalposts whenever you wish. Furthermore it's very hypocritical of you to demand others prove things when you cannot prove your own claims
More hypocrisy. The proof there's no "Is this zero the same as that zero?" problem is found in any elementary material on basic arithmetic and number fields. This proves your claims are false, which also demonstrates your assert you're correct is false, made worse by the fact you couldn't even provide evidence yourself.
So you're intellectually lazy, not my problem. The evidence is there that you're repeatedly wrong, whether you read it or not. Reality will not bend to your ignorance. As for compulsive, you show more of your own mentality in saying that than you say about mine. If I was compelled to respond to all of your drivel I'd still be replying to some of your other threads. Knocking down your claims in this thread is entertainment, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
You're the guy who claimed my lack of friendly posting style could make people ill. I think you have bigger issues than I.
Because you're detached from reality? Because you have an attention span so short you can't finish a paragraph? Because your ability to process new information is extremely poor?
You can't say "You haven't supported your case!" along side "I stopped reading your post at word 20" and be taken seriously.
There are some people who are so far detached from reality and rationality they cannot be reached. I do not respond to you to try to convince you, you're too far gone. I respond to you because I see you making demonstrably false assertions about something I care deeply about, science. Of course some people reading your posts might not know your assertions are demonstrably false so I demonstrate them false. That why anyone else reading sees the lack of justification and evidence for your position.
There are mathematical constructs which do not involve the concept known as zero. It will surprise many people who haven't taken university level mathematics but numbers are not the fundamental foundation of mathematics. There are entire mathematical constructs where numbers are not considered but instead other logical constructs are considered. Once again an assertion of yours, one which you think is in no doubt, is demonstrably false. A simple example is category theory. Yes, particular categories will pertain to numbers but the abstract concept of a category, in the mathematical meaning of the word, has no requirement for the concept of zero. There, a demonstrably false assertion from you becomes a demonstrated false assertion from you. Want another example? You say 'greater than zero'. There are mathematical constructs where 'greater than' is not well defined, even though numbers might be considered. The algebraic closure of the Reals, the Complex numbers, have no ordering. In fact there is only one complete ordered field, the Reals. 'Greater than', along with 'equals' and 'less than' are all examples of relations. Not equivalence relations (though equals is), relations. Such constructs do not require an ordering and can apply to more general or abstract concepts. Asking if two numbers relate to one another is different from saying if one is bigger than the other, it is more general. A more general class of constructs which have relations partially defined on them are Posets, or Partial Ordered Sets. Another concept which doesn't require the notion of zero. Some constructs don't even involve relations.
As I just explained, this is false. There are many mathematical statements which have nothing to do with values, including zero. Entire walls of libraries are covered with books all about mathematics which doesn't involve numbers and values. I've already given some examples. Want some more? Group theory need not have anything to do with numbers. In fact the number system used in child level arithmetic is vastly more structured and limited than such things are groups. In basic arithmetic a+b and a*b both have meaning. Not so in a group, only one of them is defined and it may not do what standard addition or multiplication do.
And now you're into the same incoherent unjustified realm of vapid assertion as masterov or chinglu. At least they have some excuse, English isn't their first language. At least when they use Google translate it will mean they spell things correctly, even if the sentences are incoherent. 5 spelling mistakes in 2 lines.
Yes, it is when you take the time to learn it. Unfortunately, by your own admission, you refuse to read when it is put in front of you.
Category theory. Provides mathematical constructs devoid of numbers and value or ordering and which is a clear counter example to your statement about 'any complex mathematical statement' involving them. No doubt you'll refuse to pay up because you either will say you didn't read this far or give some excuse which is really a veiled "I didn't understand that so I refuse to accept it". Besides, I neither want nor need your money, please give the $200 to your nearest homeless shelter.