Where? Please provide a link to the relevant post.I posted a very clear and concise proposal for you on your concept of a consistent space from applying LT in the other thread.
Once again you completely ignore all questions I asked you. You quoted me asking you several direct simple questions and you didn't reply to any of them.Like I said, I gave you a very specific example in the other thread without simply tossing around words. Like I said, I will provide the answer to the question and prove it mathematically. If you are all this in SR you will be able to provide an answer and prove it also.
And you once again imply I think I'm 'all that'. I have already told you I don't think I'm 'all that'. Thinking I'm better than most is not synonymous with thinking I'm 'all that'. Firstly, I have proof I'm better at mathematical physics than most given what I've achieved in that area. Secondly, you're here trying to convince us all that for 100 years mathematicians and physicists have missed a glaring error in a homework problem, that all of geometry and group theory is wrong and that you're the first to see it. You're here claiming essentially Nobel Prize winning stuff.
You ask vague questions and when I ask for clarification you say "Well if you think you're all that, answer it", implying that because I think I'm the best thing since sliced bread and you've asked me something I can't answer (in your eyes) then obviously you've proven your point. If you think you've proven your point then you're claiming some kind of victory in terms of the discussion and your claims. Your inability to use terminology properly, your refusal to answer direct questions aimed at clarification and your constant resort to claiming I'm extremely egotistical are not my problems.Victory to me is putting someone into a contradiction. I think you are describing your own version of victory.
I had to clarify what you were asking because you asked it so vaguely. The derivation of the general form of a coordinate boost is something you can find on a great many websites, including Wikipedia. Asking "What is $$\gamma$$ for? What about x-vt?" firstly suggests your understanding of vector calculus is dodgy since you should already understand how they arise and secondly it does nothing to further your point about which this thread was initially about.This is why I asked you specifically asked to explain LT
Are you asking why the Lorentz transformations are what they are because you don't know how they are derived or are you asking in order to lead the responder down a path to some conclusion? If the former you should read a bloody book and if its the latter just come out with it.not explaining the reasoning behind the LT equations
How many times am I going to have to restate this! I don't believe I'm 'all that'. I believe I'm pretty good and better than most. This is something I can justify with evidence. I am certain I've got a better grasp of relativity than you.You see, you are the one that claimed to know all about it.
Now, how about you answer my direct questions? Have you studied mathematics and/or physics beyond high school? Have you done any group theory? What are you not submitting this work to a journal and earning a Nobel Prize? How do you demonstrate GR has local Lorentz invariance?