• 520 Days Ago
• 09/04/2010

Re: Breaks the Pattern

Every theory is based on inconsistent postulate set, as I explained you already. If these postulates would be fully consistent, we could replace them with single one and theory would become a tautology. You should learn / invent some more general theory before starting with denial of some particular one.

• 519 Days Ago
• 09/05/2010

ARe: Breaks the Pattern

AKT: With your good mathematical background, I think you should spend your energy developing your own theories or modify some theories which you think are inconsistent with observations or mathematics.  The behavior of the universe manifests itself in the simplest of things so it's not difficult for someone with your background to realize.  Maybe you could end up solving some of the insolvable problems that physicists are scratching their heads over presently.  We'll call you crackpot if you come up with something funny, but who knows... GFTU  

• 521 Days Ago
• 09/03/2010

Re: More nonsense

MIT could not teach you how to maintain consistency in your thought. You believe that a theory which says that E is relativistic invariance and relativistic variance at the same time is OK. They taught you that a theory which predicts that the direction of force and that of acceleration are not the same is all right.

The issue addressed is how to metricise the value systems of different culture. In America, communication is done by vocal communication. In the old world very deep communication is carried out in silence. It is a very deep culture there.

Never mind, even in America, sophisticated communication exists. Gestapo intercepted a communication between Churchill and Roosevelt. Churchill warned Roosevelt that Britain broke Japanese diplomatic communication code and learned that Japan was going to attack the US. Churchill knew exact date. Roosevelt said to Churchill. "Thank you. What I do not know does not hurt me."

All of this present yet even deeper issues not verbally communicated. Record shows that Japan did not know that their diplomatic communication code was broken by British. Germany did not inform Japan about this. When Singapore fell, Hitler said, "It is a good news and but news at the same time. We are wining but Europeans lost one ground in Asia. I should have sent my fleet to help Royal navy." Japan and Germany had  labored relationship during the WWII when it came to racial issues. I bet Italy had the same problem.  MIT and The University of Chicago taught Germany that Latin and Slavic races were subhumans. 

Thanks to MIT and the University of Chicago, Japanese were a major target of American Nazi's racial attack on the West Coast which hit also Chinese and East Indians. Japan was never happy with the eugenics because Japanese did not belong to the "superior race" category as described by the "theory" produced and promoted by MIT and the Univ. of Chicago.

I, several years ago, learned that the story that the Japanese diplomat at Lithuania issued transit visa to Jews "against" the policy of Japan's government is false. In prestigious US-Japan Forum run by many renown political scientists, historian and economists of the US and Japan, it was revealed that Japan's government approved the visa to save Jews. Indeed, they showed an old newspaper article which reported a huge welcome reception in Japan for the arriving Jews. Indeed the wife of this late diplomat asked the court of Japan to ban the book which wrote about the "heroism" of this diplomat because it tells lie. As a Japanese, I know the nature of Japan's politics and I will assure you that it was next to impossible for Japanese diplomat to do this kind of things against the order from the  "fascist" government. Also it was next to impossible for the port authority of Japan's port to accept arriving Jews against the Fascists government. There is much less room for freedom in Japan in general. 

There must be some "miscommunication" between Japan and the West, the USA in particular. I bet this is because Japanese prefer silent communication and the West, the USA in particular prefers explicit laud vocal communication (aka propaganda).

I wounder how all of these very subtle but important processes of communication can be metricised in this foolish "pseudo science" presented here.

Best regards,

AKT

• 517 Days Ago
• 09/07/2010

Re: what has happened here?

The only thing which is a lengthy rants is what falredOne posted above:

FlareOne wrote,

++++++++++++++++++++++++
> What has happened here is a "380+ comments over the last three months" train-wreck. I believe (reading between the Googled lines) that SOME one was laid off, and has waaay too much time on their hands, and waaay too much frustration about "the injustice of it all" (besides the obvious problems with spelling and grammar topping it all off). And complexity theorists from the Old Country are a glut on the market right now -- particularly HERE.

> So if we all simply continue to enjoy the benefits of front-row seats at the arXiv, we CAN keep up with current explorations without having to get inflicted upon and sucked under by irrationally persistent types who are stuck in old one-topic already-addressed arguments (which implies a neurological component, by the way).

> Just ignore the lengthy rants, and above all just don't respond to them. It'll stop soon enough. For health reasons, if nothing else. Hang loose...
And now, back to the REAL stuff. LOL.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The following criticism on the standard model, SR and QM in particular, has been presented. The individual called flaredOne called it "lengthy rants" in the preceeding post.

1. SR proves that all thought experiments used to frame SR itself are invalid because there is no causality between the emission of light and reception of it.

2. SR is an axiomatic reasoning system with axioms {d=vt, PoR, CSL} where PoR is the Principle of Relativity, CSL is the Constancy of Speed of Light. Einstein deduced Lorentz Transformation LT as follows:

d=vt, PoR |- GT (Galilean Transformation)
d=vt, PoR, CSL |- LC (Length Contraction)
d=vt, PoR, CSL |- TD (Time Dilation)
LC, TD, GT |- LT.

This simply means that d=vt,PoR,CSL |- LT & GT. Virtually no physicists understands that by "denouncing" GT one cannot remove this contradiction. And this is precisely what Einstein did. It is just like Americans used the good will of Native Americans to thrive and murdered them.

3. Assume that a train runs on a track. Assume when the head of the train touches the track at F and the tail of the train touches the track at R lightning strikes F and R. A passenger located in the middle of the train will observe that F and R are hit at the same time as F and R are points of the frame of the train. But he will observe that F is hit first and then R is hit as F and R are points of the frame of the track. This is a natural consequence of the violation of geometry. Geometric space can not move in other geometric space. Not even a single point will move in geometric space as it destroys the continuum of the geometric space. So, the very concept of inertial frames is bunk. There is no such thing as inertial frames.

5. Assume a train runs on a track. Assume when an observer on the train is on the right bisector of line segments AB in the frame of the track, lightning  hits A and B. Einstein using classical argument showed that this observer will observe that A and B are hit at different moment. But if we consider CSL, then he will observe that A and B are hit at the same moment. This is because CSL asserts that the light speed and light path are not affected by the speed of the emitter of light. So, SR products both the loss of simultaneity existence of simultaneity at the same time.

6. Assume a train runs on a track. Assume synchronised clocks are placed along the clock. Assume that when operators located at the front and the tail of the train sees the clock in front of them at 12:00, they mark the track. Assume A and B are the points on the track where marks are placed. Then a ground observer can measure the length of this train as the length d of the line segment AB. But according to the length contraction, he will observe that the length of the train is less than d.

7. When we assume that the point from which light is emitted to the moving mirror is the point of the frame of the mirror, there is no length contraction. So, SR predicts both the length contraction and negation of it.

8. Assume two bikers A and B run on a road in parallel with the same speed. Assume that A emits a light signal towards B. Then from the bikers perspective B will receive the light. But from the perspective of the road, light misses B.

9. Relativistic theory of photon is inconsistent as the rest mass zero convention fails to remove the following contradiction at the length contraction:

d =sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'.

The convention worked as Einstein planned for dealing with the problem of diverging relativistic mass and diverging energy. But Einstein did not see that this convention cannot deal with length contraction as there is no occurrence of the rest mass here.

10. Transformation theory of waves is inconsistent. It predicts v_g = c^2/w. This means that unless both the group speed (v_g) and the phase speed (w) are equal to c, either of them will exceed c. De Broglie's excuse that as the wave carries energy with its group speed, let the phase speed exceed c is bunk. SR is a theory about vacuum and it rejects any wave medium. So, waves in SR do not carry energy. The transformed waves are not material waves but they are just abstract mathematical waves. Putting this essential issue aside, let us grant hypothetically that these abstract waves carry energy. Then sound waves can be treated as such abstract waves. But they have the same group speed and phase speed which is NOT c.

11. In  the relativistic mechanics, Einstein assumed

F = d(mv)/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt.   ..... (F)

This is false. It is a well know fact that in accelerated frames laws of physics will not be the same. It is known that the second law of Newton fails in particular. This error manifests as follows:

1). The direction of the force applied and that of the caused acceleration are not the same.

2). From (F) we have

E = mc^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2. ----- (E)

Also we have E^2/c^2 + p^2 is relativistic invariant. Putting this together with (E) eliminating p, we have that E is relativistic invariant. But E=mc^2 asserts otherwise.

It is unfair to put blame just on Einstein. After all, as Bohm showed, Einstein was correct in QM. It is truly ironic that Einstein was wrong in relativity theory and correct in the  theory which he opposed most. ALL "NO GO" theorems of QM are shown to be false. Despite the filthy personal attacks from the entire community of standard Quantum Mechanics, David Bohm showed that Einstein was correct. Realistic theory of QM exists and it makes more sense.

So, what is the "contribution" to the bunk of the standard model from the standard QM community. To begin with standard QM has no classical limit. The so called "correspondence" property of Bohr is not classical limit. This is because the correspondence established by taking the quantum number n large works only for energy quanta of Planck. Beyond early quantum mechanics of Bohr, contemporary QM deals with way more sophisticated process of quantisation for which the classical limit must be established.

In the von Neumann's QM, quantisation (known as first quantisation) is done by transforming classical physical quantities into self-adjoint operators over complex Hilbert spaces. How to establish link between the quantum measurement in terms of the eigenvalue analysis of the self-adjoint operators and the classical physical quantities and the measurements of them is not known yet. Philosophers such as Prof. French of Leeds University care about this problem but the simple minded quantum physicists do not care at all. They have not intelligence to understand the problem itself. It is too much work for simple minded plug in numbers equational thinkers. The Schrodinger cat paradox is a paradox which shows the failure of the classical limit in modern QM. Schrodinger who opposed linear algebraic formulation of QM presented this paradox as a counter example to Germanic linear algebraic QM. Mainstream just did not bother. Instead of presenting convincing answer to this fatal problem, they just presented it as a "popular science" issue. Then they moved on to apply this fake theory by plugging in  numbers to formulas which makes little sense.

Never mind this difficult problem, academic QM theorists did not even notice that there are two entirely different uncertainty principle were mixed up in standard QM. The standard one is due to von Neumann and Heisenberg. This is due to the interfarence of measurements expressed in terms of eigenvector analysis of self-adjoint operators over complex Hilbert spaces. The odd one is the so called energy-time uncertainty. This comes from the inherent limitation in counting the number of cress of waves. This is a classical uncertainty and has absolutely nothing to do with Quantum mechanics. So, the claim that the momentum-position uncertainty and energy-time uncertainty are most fundamental uncertainty in QM is flat wrong. It is utter nonsense coming from physicists who do not understand their own theories. For them von Neumann's QM was too much work and they never understood it. They just used it to calculate.

It is astounding that Quantum Physics has yet another "quantisation" (known as the second quantisation). It quantises not through eigenvalue analysis of self adjoint operators but it involves Fourier expansion. They are  different things even though they bear the same name. This quantisation plays a major role in Quantum Filed Theory such as QED. Neither the first quantisation nor the second quantisation makes much physical sense. They appear to be just completely disjoint two mathematical processes which bears no physical meaning.

Correct QM of Bohm needs not QFT. This tells us the ugly state of the standard Quantum Physics.

In the QED, many different quantisations are all mixed up leading the whole theory to pure nonsense. Things get alarming when we consider the quantum theory of light. For example, Einstein claims that photons are quanta of light waves. But as light waves are not energy waves, he failed to mathematise his quantisation in terms of the first quantisation. Fourier expansion of light waves give us nothing new. So, his quantisation of light waves is nothing but just a speculation good only for folklore. Dirac defines photons via the second quantisation of Maxwell's em field equations. Certainly there is no connection between Eintein's photons and Dirac's photons as the former is not mathematically articulated and the light wave and em fields are different things. Simple minded equational thinking physicists just mix them up and nobody knows what they are talking about when photons are mentioned in contemporary physics. They are preoccupied by getting numbers correct for the formulas which are pure nonsense. As "empiricists" they proclaim that these questions are irrelevant metaphysical questions.

Naturally, when we mix the bunk theory of relativistic mechanics and QED, we end up with  appalling results such as "Virtual Particles". QM as per Copenhagen claims that the prediction on measurements on "existing" quantum particles is indeterminante.  QED comes up with particles which exists only with probability using E =mc^2 which I already have show false. Never mind the falsity of E=mc^2, QED violates the most fundamental assumption of QM. IN QM  particles do exist.

All criticisms are articulate and scientific. So far no physicists managed to rebutt in scieitifically and humanly acceptable way.

What flaredOne wrote in the post above is not a substitue to well reasoned response to my criticisms. It is called personal attack and political manipulation which science needs least. It is nothing but an embarrasement to science.

I expect some meaningful scieitific discussion on this vital issues.

Best regards,

AKT

P.S. Btw, this individual called flaredOne claimed that there is such thing as classical interpretation of accelerator experiments. I told him that acclerator experiments assume SR and QM. So, I wonder how can he interpret accelerator experiments.

• 517 Days Ago
• 09/07/2010

Re: After all!

Mr. flaredOne is a classic crank. What are you? Anything important to announce? The situation is such that the entire 20Th century physics is brought down. I presented solid argument against SR and QM thus the standard model. This is still standing still and it will not be toppled by post like yours. Physicists are happy race. They think that persoanl attack will save them. Step into discussion only when you understand it. Otherwise you end up with being like this chap.

Best regards,

AKT

• 517 Days Ago
• 09/07/2010

Re: I said I wasn't going to do this, but I feel driven to make the attempt:

This individual demanded other posters not to respond to my post and he keeps responding to my post in completely irrelevant way. Is anything wrong with him? He is a person who cannot respect himself.

To begin with if he wants to be accepted to decent discussion again, he should sincerely apologise the mess he made. He is an indecent personal attacker who has no place in scietific discussion.

All of this self degrading act he did only because he could not respond to any of my criticism on the standard model.  He is a graduate of a small technical college in America which is known for its leading role in eugenics and faking experiments to discredit cold fusion. 

The questions have been posted many times. I accept nothing less than line by discussion on the issues I listed.

regards

AKT


P.S. The issues are:

*************************
1. SR proves that all thought experiments used to frame SR itself are invalid because there is no causality between the emission of light and reception of it.

2. SR is an axiomatic reasoning system with axioms {d=vt, PoR, CSL} where PoR is the Principle of Relativity, CSL is the Constancy of Speed of Light. Einstein deduced Lorentz Transformation LT as follows:

d=vt, PoR |- GT (Galilean Transformation)
d=vt, PoR, CSL |- LC (Length Contraction)
d=vt, PoR, CSL |- TD (Time Dilation)
LC, TD, GT |- LT.

This simply means that d=vt,PoR,CSL |- LT & GT. Virtually no physicists understands that by "denouncing" GT one cannot remove this contradiction. And this is precisely what Einstein did. It is just like Americans used the good will of Native Americans to thrive and murdered them.

3. Assume that a train runs on a track. Assume when the head of the train touches the track at F and the tail of the train touches the track at R lightning strikes F and R. A passenger located in the middle of the train will observe that F and R are hit at the same time as F and R are points of the frame of the train. But he will observe that F is hit first and then R is hit as F and R are points of the frame of the track. This is a natural consequence of the violation of geometry. Geometric space can not move in other geometric space. Not even a single point will move in geometric space as it destroys the continuum of the geometric space. So, the very concept of inertial frames is bunk. There is no such thing as inertial frames.

5. Assume a train runs on a track. Assume when an observer on the train is on the right bisector of line segments AB in the frame of the track, lightning  hits A and B. Einstein using classical argument showed that this observer will observe that A and B are hit at different moment. But if we consider CSL, then he will observe that A and B are hit at the same moment. This is because CSL asserts that the light speed and light path are not affected by the speed of the emitter of light. So, SR products both the loss of simultaneity existence of simultaneity at the same time.

6. Assume a train runs on a track. Assume synchronised clocks are placed along the clock. Assume that when operators located at the front and the tail of the train sees the clock in front of them at 12:00, they mark the track. Assume A and B are the points on the track where marks are placed. Then a ground observer can measure the length of this train as the length d of the line segment AB. But according to the length contraction, he will observe that the length of the train is less than d.

7. When we assume that the point from which light is emitted to the moving mirror is the point of the frame of the mirror, there is no length contraction. So, SR predicts both the length contraction and negation of it.

8. Assume two bikers A and B run on a road in parallel with the same speed. Assume that A emits a light signal towards B. Then from the bikers perspective B will receive the light. But from the perspective of the road, light misses B.

9. Relativistic theory of photon is inconsistent as the rest mass zero convention fails to remove the following contradiction at the length contraction:

d =sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'.

The convention worked as Einstein planned for dealing with the problem of diverging relativistic mass and diverging energy. But Einstein did not see that this convention cannot deal with length contraction as there is no occurrence of the rest mass here.

10. Transformation theory of waves is inconsistent. It predicts v_g = c^2/w. This means that unless both the group speed (v_g) and the phase speed (w) are equal to c, either of them will exceed c. De Broglie's excuse that as the wave carries energy with its group speed, let the phase speed exceed c is bunk. SR is a theory about vacuum and it rejects any wave medium. So, waves in SR do not carry energy. The transformed waves are not material waves but they are just abstract mathematical waves. Putting this essential issue aside, let us grant hypothetically that these abstract waves carry energy. Then sound waves can be treated as such abstract waves. But they have the same group speed and phase speed which is NOT c.

11. In  the relativistic mechanics, Einstein assumed

F = d(mv)/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt.   ..... (F)

This is false. It is a well know fact that in accelerated frames laws of physics will not be the same. It is known that the second law of Newton fails in particular. This error manifests as follows:

1). The direction of the force applied and that of the caused acceleration are not the same.

2). From (F) we have

E = mc^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2. ----- (E)

Also we have E^2/c^2 + p^2 is relativistic invariant. Putting this together with (E) eliminating p, we have that E is relativistic invariant. But E=mc^2 asserts otherwise.

It is unfair to put blame just on Einstein. After all, as Bohm showed, Einstein was correct in QM. It is truly ironic that Einstein was wrong in relativity theory and correct in the  theory which he opposed most. ALL "NO GO" theorems of QM are shown to be false. Despite the filthy personal attacks from the entire community of standard Quantum Mechanics, David Bohm showed that Einstein was correct. Realistic theory of QM exists and it makes more sense.

So, what is the "contribution" to the bunk of the standard model from the standard QM community. To begin with standard QM has no classical limit. The so called "correspondence" property of Bohr is not classical limit. This is because the correspondence established by taking the quantum number n large works only for energy quanta of Planck. Beyond early quantum mechanics of Bohr, contemporary QM deals with way more sophisticated process of quantisation for which the classical limit must be established.

In the von Neumann's QM, quantisation (known as first quantisation) is done by transforming classical physical quantities into self-adjoint operators over complex Hilbert spaces. How to establish link between the quantum measurement in terms of the eigenvalue analysis of the self-adjoint operators and the classical physical quantities and the measurements of them is not known yet. Philosophers such as Prof. French of Leeds University care about this problem but the simple minded quantum physicists do not care at all. They have not intelligence to understand the problem itself. It is too much work for simple minded plug in numbers equational thinkers. The Schrodinger cat paradox is a paradox which shows the failure of the classical limit in modern QM. Schrodinger who opposed linear algebraic formulation of QM presented this paradox as a counter example to Germanic linear algebraic QM. Mainstream just did not bother. Instead of presenting convincing answer to this fatal problem, they just presented it as a "popular science" issue. Then they moved on to apply this fake theory by plugging in  numbers to formulas which makes little sense.

Never mind this difficult problem, academic QM theorists did not even notice that there are two entirely different uncertainty principle were mixed up in standard QM. The standard one is due to von Neumann and Heisenberg. This is due to the interfarence of measurements expressed in terms of eigenvector analysis of self-adjoint operators over complex Hilbert spaces. The odd one is the so called energy-time uncertainty. This comes from the inherent limitation in counting the number of cress of waves. This is a classical uncertainty and has absolutely nothing to do with Quantum mechanics. So, the claim that the momentum-position uncertainty and energy-time uncertainty are most fundamental uncertainty in QM is flat wrong. It is utter nonsense coming from physicists who do not understand their own theories. For them von Neumann's QM was too much work and they never understood it. They just used it to calculate.

It is astounding that Quantum Physics has yet another "quantisation" (known as the second quantisation). It quantises not through eigenvalue analysis of self adjoint operators but it involves Fourier expansion. They are  different things even though they bear the same name. This quantisation plays a major role in Quantum Filed Theory such as QED. Neither the first quantisation nor the second quantisation makes much physical sense. They appear to be just completely disjoint two mathematical processes which bears no physical meaning.

Correct QM of Bohm needs not QFT. This tells us the ugly state of the standard Quantum Physics.

In the QED, many different quantisations are all mixed up leading the whole theory to pure nonsense. Things get alarming when we consider the quantum theory of light. For example, Einstein claims that photons are quanta of light waves. But as light waves are not energy waves, he failed to mathematise his quantisation in terms of the first quantisation. Fourier expansion of light waves give us nothing new. So, his quantisation of light waves is nothing but just a speculation good only for folklore. Dirac defines photons via the second quantisation of Maxwell's em field equations. Certainly there is no connection between Einstein's photons and Dirac's photons as the former is not mathematically articulated and the light wave and em fields are different things. Simple minded equational thinking physicists just mix them up and nobody knows what they are talking about when photons are mentioned in contemporary physics. They are preoccupied by getting numbers correct for the formulas which are pure nonsense. As "empiricists" they proclaim that these questions are irrelevant metaphysical questions.

Naturally, when we mix the bunk theory of relativistic mechanics and QED, we end up with  appalling results such as "Virtual Particles". QM as per Copenhagen claims that the prediction on measurements on "existing" quantum particles is indeterminante.  QED comes up with particles which exists only with probability using E =mc^2 which I already have show false. Never mind the falsity of E=mc^2, QED violates the most fundamental assumption of QM. IN QM  particles do exist.

Is GR any better?

Assume that A accelerates away from C with rate a and B accelerates away from C with rate b in opposite direction. Then A accelerates away from B with rate a+b. However, we have no way to interpret this using force. This means that the PoE is false.

Prof. Jess Brewer of the Univeristy of British Columbia responded to this saying that I was wrong in using classical addition of acceleration. There are two answers to that:

1. Does it matter, even if one uses relativistic mechanics to add acceleration relativistically, still the duality between force and acceleration fails.

2. Anyhow, there is no such thing as relativistic addition of acceleration as relativistic mechanics is invalid. It is inconsistent.

To begin with it is a stupid thing to expect that representing 3D motions by graph in 4D space time will yield anything new. It is a well known mathematical fact that a function and its graph are precisely the same thing. We gain nothing new by representing motion which is a function from time to space as a 4D graph. Moreover, gravitational universe keep changing its distribution of masses due to the gravity. When we use 4D space time, we end up with a universe which is static as Popper criticised. Raymond Cote of NPA said that this theory is good only for test particles. It is certainly  good for HW in the small technical college in America. But not for any serious purpose. This caused the problem with the expanding universe too. So Einstein introduced cosmological constant and parametrised the theory. But expansion of the space time and the mutual motion of the stars in our universe are different things and GR still cannot capture the latter. It is a toy theory which is good only for children.

• 516 Days Ago
• 09/08/2010

Re: I said I wasn't going to do this, but I feel driven to make the attempt:

> Do you agree or disagree with the relatively common practice of assigning positive and negative imaginary numbers to mathematical descriptions of inductance and capacitance?? (re: energy storage in magnetic and electrical fields)

To begin with there is no such thing as electric or magnetic field in physical reality. They are just mathematical fictions. There is no such thing as spacial distribution of forces "per unit charge".

In the same sense there is no such thing as em waves. There is no such thing as waves whose magnitude is proportional to the magnitude of the receiver. Magnitude of waves are determined only by the wave itself.

So, this argument is completely off. Mathematical fictions and physical reality are different things. The usage of complex numbers mentioned above have nothing to do with if complex number is physical reality or not. All mathematics can be reduced to axiomatic set theory ZF. It is stupid to say that ZF sets are physical reality because they can represent some physical reality. 

Metaphysics is way beyond mechanical mind of theoretical physicists. They should all humble themselves and learn metaphysics such as mathematics, logic and philosophy.

Regards,

AKT

• 517 Days Ago
• 09/07/2010

Re: Pathological?

No, it appears to be simple "attention seeking" behavior. Well, with a sociopathic component to it -- he has absolutely no regard for social niceties, because SR is the be-all-and-end-all of "This society is going to hell". And he had such potential... :(

I actually came back to edit-to-add a last-but-not-least question of "Which question did I NOT ask that I should have??"... But THAT whole effort fizzled -- I suspect because my questions gave away where I was headed with this; rebuttals that he has already dismissed as "inconsequential" and "anyway, that doesn't matter" (when it is in fact pertinent). And (heh) he will only accept a line-by-line discussion of his screed. Life is too short for any of this...

The take-home message is that he has no real interest in establishing a neutral vocabulary, meeting anyone "halfway", let alone actually caring about getting INTO a discussion -- he's clinging to his particular "dead horse" because it gives him some gratification resulting from insulting everyone and their obvious intellectual deficits.

As far as I can tell, he's forfeited all rights to anything except the same treatment he's been handing out for years: derision, defamation, and disgust. Given all the indicators, though -- specifically the particular category of spelling errors he's been making recently, indicative of trembling fingers, in combination with the neurological "focus" issues -- he'll be someone else's problem soon enough. Assuming he HAS anyone else "close", which seems sadly unlikely.

• 517 Days Ago
• 09/07/2010

Re: Einstein

This tells us that you are not an independent thinker.

Whatever Einstein said, that the time-wise distance issue in SR invalidates all thought experiments which founded SR is a fact, logical fact and this shows that SR is a complete nonsense.

In control theory, there was a graduate student who wrote a ph.d. thesis using a well established result in functional analysis. Just a few  days before his defense, a Russian mathematician showed that the result of the functional analysis is false. The CUNY could not give him ph.d. The university was very sympathetic and offered him two more years of assistant-ship so that he could finish ph.d. He was so discouraged and he quit.

It was great David Hilbert who believed that we could frame the foundation of mathematics which is consistent and which can be proved to be consistent. Everybody in foundation of mathematics followed Hilbert but Kurt Godel. He showed that for any theory it is impossible to prove a sentence which means its consistency. He showed that Hilbert was wrong. Von Nuemann accepted Godel's result and cancelled his course on the Hilbert Project at MIT. Then later Mostowski and Feffermann discovered that there is more to the issue by showing that there are sentences of the theory which means the consistency of itself which can be proved by the theory. These sentences are different from Godel's sentence.

It is not only in mathematics. It happened in physics too. Classical em field theory for example is shown to be invalid because of the black-body radiation.

So, it is not the matter of who said what and who reviewed them for publication. Before science became profession, people were more open minded to the truth and readily accepted defeat. Now as the entire physics is a massive profession, they have too much occupational interest at stake and this is why they do anything to deny the errors. 

Regardless of what Einstein said and the peer review journals selected, that
E =mc^2 = sqrt((m0c^2)^2+(pc)^2)
and E^2/c^2 +p^2 being relativistic invariant causes the contradiction that E is relativistic invariant while E = mc^2 asserts otherwise is a mathematical fact.

Science is not to worship big names. It was Einstein himself who said "Question the authority!" He also said "As I am a revolutionary, they made me an authority."

Also, to be direct, relativity theory does not need more than middle school mathematics taught in the old world. Error was made at this level. You could not detect the error and you are discussing Maths 101, which is less than the secondary school maths in the old world.

Tell me what do you know about Math 101.
Best regards,

AKT

• 516 Days Ago
• 09/08/2010

Re: Per YOU, NOTHING can be known.

Flaredone rote

> What has happened here is a "380+ comments over the last three months" train-wreck. I believe (reading between the Googled lines) that SOME one was laid off, and has waaay too much time on their hands, and waaay too much frustration about "the injustice of it all" (besides the obvious problems with spelling and grammar topping it all off). And complexity theorists from the Old Country are a glut on the market right now -- particularly HERE.

> So if we all simply continue to enjoy the benefits of front-row seats at the arXiv, we CAN keep up with current explorations without having to get inflicted upon and sucked under by irrationally persistent types who are stuck in old one-topic already-addressed arguments (which implies a neurological component, by the way).

> Just ignore the lengthy rants, and above all just don't respond to them. It'll stop soon enough. For health reasons, if nothing else. Hang loose...
And now, back to the REAL stuff. LOL.

Yet without decency he posted the above addressed to me. He has not apologised his abusive conduct of personal attack. He likes to himself. He has no respect to himself. He is the one who ordered other posters not to respond to my posts. What kind of personality is this individual.

Shame, shame. shame.

AKT

• 516 Days Ago
• 09/08/2010

Re: Per YOU, NOTHING can be known.

The abusive falredOne rote:

> What has happened here is a "380+ comments over the last three months" train-wreck. I believe (reading between the Googled lines) that SOME one was laid off, and has waaay too much time on their hands, and waaay too much frustration about "the injustice of it all" (besides the obvious problems with spelling and grammar topping it all off). And complexity theorists from the Old Country are a glut on the market right now -- particularly HERE.

> So if we all simply continue to enjoy the benefits of front-row seats at the arXiv, we CAN keep up with current explorations without having to get inflicted upon and sucked under by irrationally persistent types who are stuck in old one-topic already-addressed arguments (which implies a neurological component, by the way).

> Just ignore the lengthy rants, and above all just don't respond to them. It'll stop soon enough. For health reasons, if nothing else. Hang loose...
And now, back to the REAL stuff. LOL.

He has not apologised his abusive behaviour which has no place in any science. He is a filty personal attacker who expresses his own hopelss incompetence in the rage of personal attack like this.

Moreover, he cannot respect himself. He said that he would not respond to my posts and yet he keeps posting to me violating his own moratorium and his own declaration that there should be no off topic postings. His postings are the worst violations of this principle.

All we see in his post is rage, filthy but comical rage.


Regards,

AKT

• 516 Days Ago
• 09/08/2010

Re: Considering the evidence embedded in your comments

I learned that in physics there is no such thing as formal courtesy as Einstein incisively pointed out. However, as a person from different background, I made sure that I do not make my criticism personal. I criticised objectively with reasoning and facts the attitude and understanding of the community. I said that commuity of physics is corrupted. Or I said that the leading figures  such as Penrose and Hawkins of theoretical physics are corrupted. This is not personal. They represent physics comminity in main stream. They represent main stream understanding.

However, what you did as record clearly shows is a filthy personal attack, slunder. There is no excuse for that. You are held responsible for this abusive conduct.

Regards

AKT