Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Spacetime Is Doomed, Therefore Einstein's Light Postulate Is False

178 views
Skip to first unread message

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Apr 16, 2016, 11:11:10 AM4/16/16
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZWGBYDBoGw
According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed, there is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally, but, on the other hand, (21:41) spacetime is a logical consequence of Einstein's postulate that there is a maximum speed which is exactly the same for everybody, no matter how they are moving. But since the consequence is nonexistent and doomed, the postulate from which it has been deduced is false, isn't it? Logic does not allow the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence". See also this:

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Pentcho Valev

David Fuller

unread,
Apr 16, 2016, 2:29:19 PM4/16/16
to
Inverse octaves.

1 / 800 000 = 0.00000125

(1 / 800000) / ((4 * pi) * (10^(-7))) = 0.99471839432

(50 / 800 000) / ((4 * pi) * (10^(-7))) =
49.7359197162

1 / (((50 / 800000) / ((4 * pi) * (10^(-7)))) * 299792458) = 6.7067041e-11

(375 * 800 000)^2 = 9e+16

1 / ((375 * 800 000)^2) = 1.1111111e-17

0.00000000008 / 9 = 8.8888889e-12

0.888888888888 * 1.111111111111 = 0.98765432098

(8 * (10^(-11))) / 9 = 8.8888889e-12

1 / (c * 376.730313)) * 9) / (8 * (10^(-11))) = 0.996096131

7 axis' intersecting 7 plans + 1

7^2+ 1

7+1 = octave

http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg



Gary Harnagel

unread,
Apr 16, 2016, 7:48:41 PM4/16/16
to
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 9:11:10 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZWGBYDBoGw
>
> According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed, there is
> no such thing as spacetime fundamentally, but, on the other hand, (21:41)
> spacetime is a logical consequence of Einstein's postulate that there is
> a maximum speed which is exactly the same for everybody, no matter how
> they are moving. But since the consequence is nonexistent and doomed,
> the postulate from which it has been deduced is false, isn't it?

No, because the postulate is experimentally verified.

“No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr

> Logic does not allow the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence".

If "logic" deduces space-time from P2, and space-time is false, but P2 is
true, there is something wrong with your logic. This is only logical.

Either space-time is true or there is another postulate besides P2 which
is used to deduce space-time that is false. What other postulate could
be involved? Given the LT:

x' = gamma*(x - v*t)
t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2)

an analogy is drawn to rotation in a plane:

x' = x*cos(Θ) + y*sin(Θ)
y' = y*cos(Θ) - x*sin(Θ)

From which one can conclude that

cos(Θ) = 1/sqrt(1 - v²/c²) and sin(Θ) = -(v/c)/sqrt(1 - v²/c²).

So now you have to deal with a value for the cosine which is greater than
unity. You have to decide how good an analogy THAT is. But in any case,
space-time is just a model which has worked out quite well. It may or
may not describe the underlying reality, (the "Cosmic All") but models are
all we have.

Gary

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Apr 17, 2016, 1:43:20 PM4/17/16
to
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined."

Is there some dangerous logic in this text, Einsteinians?

Pentcho Valev

ayhan....@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 27, 2019, 10:35:24 AM4/27/19
to
oooooooooopzşıoııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııııı444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444448888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888822222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 28, 2019, 12:03:13 AM4/28/19
to
The Eternal dimensional and temporal order is indelible.
Einstein's space time is as true as a real everywhere forever
and a space time's Here and now.
God is creating gravity-time.

Mitchell Raemsch

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Apr 28, 2019, 7:30:33 PM4/28/19
to
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:11:10 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed,

Spacetime is what gives the religion of relativity that fatal contradiction to the twin paradox. Any hypotheses based on spacetime is doomed. For more information, see the following treatise.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs

Ahjohng

JanPB

unread,
Apr 29, 2019, 4:45:25 PM4/29/19
to
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:11:10 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed,

The same way Newtonian mechanics is doomed.

> Spacetime is what gives the religion of relativity that fatal contradiction to the twin paradox. Any hypotheses based on spacetime is doomed.

Nonsense. Not even wrong.

--
Jan

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Apr 29, 2019, 8:22:35 PM4/29/19
to
> > is doomed. For more information, see the following treatise.
>
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs

> The same way Newtonian mechanics is doomed.

Newtonian mechanics is not doomed. On the other hand, the religion of relativity is doomed. <shrug>

> Nonsense. Not even wrong.

What is the queer of England throwing a fit about this time? Does anyone give a damn? <shrug>

Ahjohng

JanPB

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 12:15:55 AM4/30/19
to
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:22:35 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > Spacetime is what gives the religion of relativity that fatal
> > > contradiction to the twin paradox. Any hypotheses based on spacetime
> > > is doomed. For more information, see the following treatise.
> >
> > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs
>
> > The same way Newtonian mechanics is doomed.
>
> Newtonian mechanics is not doomed. On the other hand, the religion of relativity is doomed. <shrug>

Reread what I wrote.

--
Jan

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 12:33:01 AM4/30/19
to
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:15:55 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:22:35 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Spacetime is what gives the religion of relativity that fatal
> > contradiction to the twin paradox. Any hypotheses based on spacetime
> > is doomed. For more information, see the following treatise.
>
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs

> Reread what I wrote.

Why reread your ranting nonsense from the religion of relativity? <shrug>

Ahjohng

JanPB

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 3:18:46 AM4/30/19
to
You are projecting again. Just because you have a blind desperate belief does
not mean everyone else does.

--
Jan

maluw...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 3:30:51 AM4/30/19
to
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 09:18:46 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> You are projecting again. Just because you have a blind desperate belief does
> not mean everyone else does.

Jan, poor idiot, your bunch of fanatics is not "everyone else".

beda pietanza

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 7:08:34 AM4/30/19
to
Il giorno domenica 17 aprile 2016 01:48:41 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel ha scritto:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 9:11:10 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZWGBYDBoGw
> >
> > According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed, there is
> > no such thing as spacetime fundamentally, but, on the other hand, (21:41)
> > spacetime is a logical consequence of Einstein's postulate that there is
> > a maximum speed which is exactly the same for everybody, no matter how
> > they are moving. But since the consequence is nonexistent and doomed,
> > the postulate from which it has been deduced is false, isn't it?
>
> No, because the postulate is experimentally verified.

postulate cannot be verified by experiments, from experiments you may pustulate some law, verifications don't prove, only falsefication can be definitive
>
> “No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr
>
> > Logic does not allow the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence".
>
> If "logic" deduces space-time from P2, and space-time is false, but P2 is
> true, there is something wrong with your logic. This is only logical.
>
> Either space-time is true or there is another postulate besides P2 which
> is used to deduce space-time that is false.

there cannot be any postulate meant to falsify another postulate.

they are assumed apriori.

You need a theory to show that another theory is false.

According to many the ether theory is a better model than spacetime to describe the universe.

So they had postilate the existence of a ether to explain all, and in the ether model spacetime have no place.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 8:00:21 AM4/30/19
to
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 5:08:34 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
>
> Il giorno domenica 17 aprile 2016 01:48:41 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel ha scritto:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 9:11:10 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZWGBYDBoGw
> > >
> > > According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed, there
> > > is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally, but, on the other hand,
> > > (21:41) spacetime is a logical consequence of Einstein's postulate
> > > that there is a maximum speed which is exactly the same for
> > > everybody, no matter how they are moving. But since the consequence
> > > is nonexistent and doomed, the postulate from which it has been
> > > deduced is false, isn't it?
> >
> > No, because the postulate is experimentally verified.
>
> postulate cannot be verified by experiments,

Whatever gave you such an unrealistic idea? Of COURSE, for example,
the invariance of the speed of light can be determined by experiment.

> from experiments you may pustulate some law, verifications don't prove,
> only falsefication can be definitive

There is no "proving" in physics, there is only confirmation (verification)
of refutation. But you have the situation backwards: the claim that the
speed of light is affected by the motion of the source or receiver has
been soundly refuted.

> > “No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr
> >
> > > Logic does not allow the combination "true postulate, wrong
> > > consequence".
> >
> > If "logic" deduces space-time from P2, and space-time is false, but P2
> > is true, there is something wrong with your logic. This is only
> > logical.
> >
> > Either space-time is true or there is another postulate besides P2
> > which is used to deduce space-time that is false.
>
> there cannot be any postulate meant to falsify another postulate.
>
> they are assumed apriori.

So you believe that if you postulate that the sky is green, then it is
impossible to refute that? That is REALLY nuts!

> You need a theory to show that another theory is false.

No, all I need is a MEASUREMENT to refute a theory or a postulate.

> According to many the ether theory is a better model than spacetime to
> describe the universe.

Who are these "many"? They certainly aren't scientists.

> So they had postilate the existence of a ether to explain all, and in
> the ether model spacetime have no place.

In experimental measurement, the ether has no place, and spacetime is
just a model. It helps to conceptualize reality, but don't get too
attached to it:

“we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of
spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which
they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize
as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe

"Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But
we don't know what it's replaced by." – David Gross

maluw...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 8:09:27 AM4/30/19
to
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 14:00:21 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> So you believe that if you postulate that the sky is green, then it is
> impossible to refute that? That is REALLY nuts!

Gary, the border between green and blue is fuzzy.
Of course, it's not for your tiny, fanatic brain.


>
> > You need a theory to show that another theory is false.
>
> No, all I need is a MEASUREMENT to refute a theory or a postulate.

So naive, so innocent.

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 10:56:07 AM4/30/19
to
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 12:18:46 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:33:01 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Spacetime is what gives the religion of relativity that fatal
> > contradiction to the twin paradox. Any hypotheses based on spacetime
> > is doomed. For more information, see the following treatise.
>
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs

> You are projecting again.

You are off on a tangent again. Just because you have a blind desperate belief of your religion of relativity, it does not mean everyone else does. <shrug>

Ahjohng

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 11:11:08 AM4/30/19
to
Just because you have a blind desperate belief of your religion of an
"aether", it does not mean everyone else does.

Nor does it mean that it even exists.

Cruz Laconta

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 11:12:29 AM4/30/19
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> postulate cannot be verified by experiments,
>
> Whatever gave you such an unrealistic idea? Of COURSE, for example, the
> invariance of the speed of light can be determined by experiment.
>
>> from experiments you may pustulate some law, verifications don't prove,
>> only falsefication can be definitive
>
> There is no "proving" in physics, there is only confirmation
> (verification)
> of refutation. But you have the situation backwards: the claim that the
> speed of light is affected by the motion of the source or receiver has
> been soundly refuted.

You are joke, Dr. beda is fully consistent. At your age.

Cruz Laconta

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 11:20:57 AM4/30/19
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs
>> >
>> > You are projecting again.
>>
>> You are off on a tangent again. Just because you have a blind
>> desperate belief of your religion of relativity, it does not mean
>> everyone else does. <shrug> Ahjohng
>
> Just because you have a blind desperate belief of your religion of an
> "aether", it does not mean everyone else does.
> Nor does it mean that it even exists.

You can't bend or curve emptiness vacuum, what's wrong with you? A form
of medium with INTERNAL STRUCTURE is REQUIRED. Not something to take up
and debate. Use a brain, outside the arduino development kit.

Cruz Laconta

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 11:23:56 AM4/30/19
to
Because if not, then what you have left is plainly my

_Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies_ model (_DMMB_).

JanPB

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 12:53:36 PM4/30/19
to
Whenever you start repeating what I say, I consider my job done :-)
As is this thread.

--
Jan

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 3:10:41 PM4/30/19
to
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:53:36 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 7:56:07 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Spacetime is what gives the religion of relativity that fatal
> > contradiction to the twin paradox. Any hypotheses based on spacetime
> > is doomed. For more information, see the following treatise.
>
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs

> Whenever you start repeating what I say, I consider my job done :-)

Just what is your job, and who is paying you? <shrug>

> As is this thread.

You are still ranting nonsense that does not offer anything to a normal discussion. <shrug>

Ahjohng


mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2019, 4:50:43 PM4/30/19
to
The spatial temporal is the indelible from Einstein.

Cruz Laconta

unread,
May 2, 2019, 2:59:13 PM5/2/19
to
JanPB wrote:

>> > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs
>>
>> > You are projecting again.
>>
>> You are off on a tangent again. Just because you have a blind
>> desperate belief of your religion of relativity, it does not mean
>> everyone else does. <shrug>
>
> Whenever you start repeating what I say, I consider my job done As is
> this thread.

When you postulate curvature of a medium with no internal structure, say
vacuum, my job is done and over. You understand not even of a level of
Aristotle 3000 years ago. Not because they were stupid.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2019, 5:12:18 PM5/2/19
to
Space time aether material is right for light.

JanPB

unread,
May 2, 2019, 6:46:06 PM5/2/19
to
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:59:13 AM UTC-7, Cruz Laconta wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs
> >>
> >> > You are projecting again.
> >>
> >> You are off on a tangent again. Just because you have a blind
> >> desperate belief of your religion of relativity, it does not mean
> >> everyone else does. <shrug>
> >
> > Whenever you start repeating what I say, I consider my job done As is
> > this thread.
>
> When you postulate curvature of a medium with no internal structure, say
> vacuum, my job is done and over.

Not EVEN wrong. Gobbledygook. Boeotian howl.

> You understand not even of a level of
> Aristotle 3000 years ago. Not because they were stupid.

Go back to your sandbox, dear.

--
Jan

herbert...@gmail.com

unread,
May 6, 2019, 5:06:21 PM5/6/19
to
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:11:10 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZWGBYDBoGw
> According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, (11:49) spacetime is doomed, there is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally, but, on the other hand, (21:41) spacetime is a logical consequence of Einstein's postulate that there is a maximum speed which is exactly the same for everybody, no matter how they are moving. But since the consequence is nonexistent and doomed, the postulate from which it has been deduced is false, isn't it? Logic does not allow the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence". See also this:
>
> http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
> "Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
>
> https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
> What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
>
> Pentcho Valev

Going with reality its safe to say "Time and Space are one of aspects same" Space-Time Well I feel very far out today so space-time was Einstein's far out idea. I go deeper I see all stuff done with our brains.It has go so far over time for us to imagine universes.WOW Just think."past,present,and future is only a very persistent illusion. This takes all the strange stuff away. Reality is our brains can create a world so real that its unreal.Truth of this is we all life in out own world.That's true in LA or NYC.Bert

JanPB

unread,
May 6, 2019, 5:55:24 PM5/6/19
to
Pentcho is an idiot who doesn't understand how science works. When someone
says "spacetime is doomed, there is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally",
it doesn't mean what Pentcho assumes it means. For example, the phase fluid of
Hamiltonian mechanics doesn't "exist" either. Neither does Poinsot's
ellipsoid, etc. etc. Pentcho just has an anti-Einstein agenda, fueled
by some emotional dislocation he suffers from, not worth much of
serious responding, he's been posting those snippets for literally
_decades_ (since the early 1990s), they never change, it's a monomania.

--
Jan

Koobee Wublee

unread,
May 6, 2019, 6:32:49 PM5/6/19
to
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 2:55:24 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 2:06:21 PM UTC-7, herbert...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Going with reality its safe to say "Time and Space are one of aspects
> > same" Space-Time
>
> there is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally",

The religion of relativity is based on the physical illusion of spacetime. The scripture even invents an imaginary parameter called the proper time thing.

For more information about the silliness of the religion of relativity, check out the following treatise.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs

Ahjohng

Erbu Palièka

unread,
May 9, 2019, 2:00:51 PM5/9/19
to
JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:59:13 AM UTC-7, Cruz Laconta wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>
>> >> > > https://drive.google.com/open?
id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs
>> >>
>> >> > You are projecting again.
>> >>
>> >> You are off on a tangent again. Just because you have a blind
>> >> desperate belief of your religion of relativity, it does not mean
>> >> everyone else does. <shrug>
>> >
>> > Whenever you start repeating what I say, I consider my job done As
>> > is this thread.
>>
>> When you postulate curvature of a medium with no internal structure,
>> say vacuum, my job is done and over.
>
> Not EVEN wrong. Gobbledygook. Boeotian howl.

You don't understand the question. Tensors in physics ALWAYS relates t
something material. You can't just be propping tensors all empty places,
just like that, at will.

Tom Roberts

unread,
May 9, 2019, 6:49:23 PM5/9/19
to
On 5/9/19 1:00 PM, Erbu Palièka wrote:
> You don't understand the question. Tensors in physics ALWAYS relates t
> something material. You can't just be propping tensors all empty places,
> just like that, at will.

You understand neither physics nor tensors. Why bother just making stuff
up and pretending it is true?

Tom Roberts

Erbu Palièka

unread,
May 9, 2019, 7:52:27 PM5/9/19
to
Another academia not knowing tensors in physics, what are they for.

Koobee Wublee

unread,
May 9, 2019, 11:28:01 PM5/9/19
to
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 3:49:23 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 5/9/19 1:00 PM, Erbu Palièka wrote:

> > Tensors in physics ALWAYS relates to something material.
>
> You understand neither physics nor tensors.

Tensors used in GR are nothing but multidimensional matrices. If you treat whatever you called tensors as matrices, you will never go wrong in mathematics. Prove these statements wrong then if you think otherwise. If not, you don’t understand the roles of tensors play in GR, and shame on you. For more information, check out the following treatise. <shrug>

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2req4Gb1gfA9CvmnEqskUFwqfqdpvqs

Ahjohng

JanPB

unread,
May 10, 2019, 1:21:31 AM5/10/19
to
I understand what you are trying to say but you are simply not even wrong.

--
Jan

maluw...@gmail.com

unread,
May 10, 2019, 2:29:31 AM5/10/19
to
And Bach-like guru Jan is a queen of England.

Erbu Palièka

unread,
May 10, 2019, 6:22:36 PM5/10/19
to
JanPB wrote:

>> >> > Whenever you start repeating what I say, I consider my job done
>> >> > As is this thread.
>> >>
>> >> When you postulate curvature of a medium with no internal structure,
>> >> say vacuum, my job is done and over.
>> >
>> > Not EVEN wrong. Gobbledygook. Boeotian howl.
>>
>> You don't understand the question. Tensors in physics ALWAYS relates t
>> something material. You can't just be propping tensors all empty
>> places,
>> just like that, at will.
>
> I understand what you are trying to say but you are simply not even
> wrong.

Another academic never using tensors, math modelling physics. What a
shame. But this cannot stop them proclaiming relativity is a "model".

JanPB

unread,
May 11, 2019, 1:59:14 PM5/11/19
to
Not even wrong.

--
Jan
0 new messages