Constructibility and Mathematical Existence

Science > Physics > Constructibility and Mathematical Existence

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Shubee"
Date:	13 May 2007 03:51:24 PM
Object:	Constructibility and Mathematical Existence

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Then your physics professors owe you an apology for training you to
believe in a false and blissfully ignorant view of mathematical logic
and you ought to speak to your physics department and university about
trying to get some of your tuition back.
Kurt G=F6del showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is consistent
with the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even if the axiom of
choice is adopted. Then in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that the negation of
the Continuum Hypothesis is also consistent with those same axioms.
Hence, the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. Both of these
results assume that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms themselves do not
contain a contradiction; this assumption is widely believed to be
true.
Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFC
Do you understand the implications? Mathematical fantasies exist. If
they exist in pure math they can also exist in physics. Consequently,
there is no need to cry heresy when I admit the possibility that
Special Relativity theory is a logically consistent mathematical
fantasy. Constructibility is a legitimate question in the
mathematization of physics. If replacing existentially doubtful
postulates with more mathematically revealing axioms is my crime
( http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf ) then let
mathematicians condemn me for my error. I will not apologize for my
unabashed irreverence for the careless and uncritical thinking
perpetuated by the high priests of physics.

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert's
axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beating
a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

Please leave it to mathematicians to explain the successes and
failures in Hilbert's program for the foundations of mathematics and
Hilbert's challenge in his famous 6th problem to axiomatize all of
physics. Above all, please believe Hilbert when he said, "Physics is
too difficult for physicists." I have only quoted Hilbert's true
statements.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
Shubee
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	13 May 2007 04:16:40 PM

"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179089484.102095.12700@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Your physics professors owe you a profound apology for
training you to believe that physics is a branch of mathematics.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Y.Porat"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	13 May 2007 10:32:47 PM

On May 14, 12:16 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179089484.102095.12700@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Your physics professors owe you a profound apology for
training you to believe that physics is a branch of mathematics.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.

Dirk Vdm

-------------------
it is the first time in my life that i have to agree with Dirk
(may be i have a humble part in it as well-
in promoting some undersatnding and emphasising
an important point that too many 'physicist' do not properly
reallise:)
**there is no complete overlap between physics and mathematics*
iow
physics formulas or equations do not always have
the same scope of validation
generally speaking i would say
that** the scope of validation **of a physics formula
ore equation is **more limited** than its methematical scope!!
2
the above is a hint about how and by whom
physics advance (espaecially physics breakthroughs )
can be made !!!........
ATB
Y.Porat
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
.

User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	14 May 2007 10:30:23 AM

On May 13, 11:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 14, 12:16 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179089484.102095.12700@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Your physics professors owe you a profound apology for
training you to believe that physics is a branch of mathematics.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.

Dirk Vdm

-------------------
it is the first time in my life that i have to agree with Dirk
(may be i have a humble part in it as well-
in promoting some undersatnding and emphasising
an important point that too many 'physicist' do not properly
reallise:)

**there is no complete overlap between physics and mathematics*

iow
physics formulas or equations do not always have
the same scope of validation

generally speaking i would say
that** the scope of validation **of a physics formula
ore equation is **more limited** than its methematical scope!!

2
the above is a hint about how and by whom
physics advance (espaecially physics breakthroughs )
can be made !!!........

ATB
Y.Porat

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

To divorce physics from mathematics seems to me a bad thought. If we
accept your approach then physics will continue to get more and more
complicated rather than becoming simplified. In our search to
understand nature we are compelled to find simplistic constructions
that mimic nature. No matter how complicated the beast gets we need to
tend toward a condensed form that unfolds into complexity. Rather than
splice together curves at arbitrary singularities wouldn't you rather
find a singular equation that describes the entirety? Even if it does
not exist it is still the correct path. This then leaves us seeking
new mathematical constructions. Until such constructions are exhausted
the acceptance of a complicated nonmathematical framework for physics
is not a worthy position. The best position is to consider new
mathematical constructions and find behaviors consistent with nature.
These will hopefully guide us toward a simplistic formulation. The
assumption of existence is perhaps the only assumption worth taking.
This then leaves the whole problem open and to develop the forward
path can involve deleting old parts of the current construction and
recovering them further along in different ways. In effect it may be
necessary to exit the existing mathematics in favor of new
mathematics. For the physicist the only weight of value to such
constructions is their consistency with nature.
The lack of simplicity in the current state of physics is a decent
indicator that flaws exist and leads to the belief system above.
Accepting that the problem is in actuality open goes against the grain
and that is where we want to be since there are the new things that
must be explored. Beyond that existing mathematics is tedious in its
numerous breakdowns and breakouts and conflicted nomenclatures. These
approaches are hardly convincing and I doubt that they are productive
features of mathematics.
For instance the real numbers are built out of the integers?
The physical consequence yields the continuum out of the discrete.
Few physicists will accept this build of reality while every
mathematician has had these features burned in to their thinking early
on. The real number itself deserves scrutiny by the physicist. Is
distance fundamental or is the real number? To the mathematician a
magnitude is defined in the context of a real number or a complex
number rather than being more fundamental. Worries over such features
of the fundamental mathematical framework of physics will lead to new
ways. These new ways will recover the old ways. The subtle inversions
generate a new yield which simplifies existing mathematics. It unfolds
more complex domains while supporting the natural spacetime basis:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
What you grant within a mathematical construction is free. That is why
it is granted. To take this freedom is axiomatic. The consequences
generated by such a construction are the only value that the
construction holds. When a construction becomes consequential within
its axioms then theoretical hopes alight. To be a convict of reality
leaves us operating in hindsight.
We are seekers
struggling all the while
playing finder's keeper's
to simplify the style
of the heapers
of the pile.
One should ask the keepers
if a weak little peeper
can do the job cheaper
should one give up the mildewed way?
-Tim
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	16 May 2007 08:07:38 PM

On 2007-05-13, Shubee <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

So what?
[...]

Fine. If think the universe has _some_ geometry, and you also think
it is possible to measure thinks like distances, then your choices are
severly limited. Experimental data limit you to relativity.

If replacing existentially doubtful
postulates with more mathematically revealing axioms is my crime
( http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf ) then let
mathematicians condemn me for my error. I will not apologize for my
unabashed irreverence for the careless and uncritical thinking
perpetuated by the high priests of physics.

Your crime is your unfounded belief that you know more about this
subject than you do.

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert's
axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beating
a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

Physics is not mathematics. Godel did not prove that physics cannot
be restricted to a finite number of postulates, which result in a finite
number of physical laws.

Please leave it to mathematicians to explain the successes and
failures in Hilbert's program for the foundations of mathematics and

I do leave it to the mathematicians and you should leave it to
them as well.

Hilbert's challenge in his famous 6th problem to axiomatize all of
physics. Above all, please believe Hilbert when he said, "Physics is
too difficult for physicists." I have only quoted Hilbert's true
statements.

Then how is it that most of the mathematics used in physics was
abandoned as uninteresting by mathematicians who only became interested
in it again after physicists developed it to the point of being interesting.
Go away, shubee.
.

User: "Shubee"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	17 May 2007 04:44:10 AM

On May 16, 6:07 pm, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:

On 2007-05-13, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

So what?

[...]

Fine. If think the universe has _some_ geometry, and you also think
it is possible to measure thinks like distances, then your choices are
severly limited. Experimental data limit you to relativity.

No. Reason and experimental data only points to the Lorentz
transformation. There is no experimental or mathematical proof for the
nonexistence of an undetectable, absolute frame of reference.

If replacing existentially doubtful
postulates with more mathematically revealing axioms is my crime
(http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf) then let
mathematicians condemn me for my error. I will not apologize for my
unabashed irreverence for the careless and uncritical thinking
perpetuated by the high priests of physics.

Your crime is your unfounded belief that you know more about this
subject than you do.

I'm only asserting that mathematicians understand
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert's
axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beating
a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

Physics is not mathematics. Godel did not prove that physics cannot
be restricted to a finite number of postulates, which result in a finite
number of physical laws.

I didn't say anything about a finite number of physical laws. But I
did mention the Hilbert atlas of all conceivable universes.

Please leave it to mathematicians to explain the successes and
failures in Hilbert's program for the foundations of mathematics and

I do leave it to the mathematicians and you should leave it to
them as well.

Then admit that you don't understand my argument based on ZFC and the
Continuum Hypothesis.

Physicists haven't developed any of the math of special or general
relativity, which is the subject of this thread.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	17 May 2007 11:58:26 AM

On 2007-05-17, Shubee <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote, wannabe scholar

On May 16, 6:07 pm, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:

On 2007-05-13, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

So what?

[...]

Fine. If think the universe has _some_ geometry, and you also think
it is possible to measure thinks like distances, then your choices are
severly limited. Experimental data limit you to relativity.

No. Reason and experimental data only points to the Lorentz
transformation. There is no experimental or mathematical proof for the
nonexistence of an undetectable, absolute frame of reference.

Sure there is. A set of frames is described by an R-torsor, not a
group, since the underlying space is an affine space not a vector space.
The introduction of an origin adds additional structure. Unless you plan
to offer up some physics which results from introducing the additional
structure, you are still mentally masturbating.
[...]

Your crime is your unfounded belief that you know more about this
subject than you do.

I'm only asserting that mathematicians understand
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Then why don't you send it to a mathematical journal for publication?
[..]

Physics is not mathematics. Godel did not prove that physics cannot
be restricted to a finite number of postulates, which result in a finite
number of physical laws.

I didn't say anything about a finite number of physical laws. But I
did mention the Hilbert atlas of all conceivable universes.

No, you attached hilbert's name to your own quirky ideas to gain
credibility because your ideas are not credible.

Please leave it to mathematicians to explain the successes and
failures in Hilbert's program for the foundations of mathematics and

I do leave it to the mathematicians and you should leave it to
them as well.

Then admit that you don't understand my argument based on ZFC and the
Continuum Hypothesis.

Thank you for providing yet another example of your propensity for
fallacious logic.

Physicists haven't developed any of the math of special or general
relativity, which is the subject of this thread.

You only think that because your limited understanding of relativity.
The most important developments (after einstein's initial work) in
relativity was done by dirac, wigner and others who applied and
developed group theory for that purpose. The reason you feel the need to
introduce some heirarchy of qualification is because your own understanding
of this subject is so poor that you cannot defend your own arguments and
you need to divert attention from your own inadequacies. Physics is
not mathematics. Physicists develop mathematics when mathematicians are
not interested enough in some aspect of mathematics to pursue it for
mathematical reasons. Otherwise, physicists would be more than happy to
leave all of that to mathematicians. Only you think that mathematicians
really want to be physicists or vice-versa.
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	17 May 2007 05:47:29 PM

On May 17, 2:44 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 16, 6:07 pm, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:

On 2007-05-13, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

So what?

[...]

Fine. If think the universe has _some_ geometry, and you also think
it is possible to measure thinks like distances, then your choices are
severly limited. Experimental data limit you to relativity.

No. Reason and experimental data only points to the Lorentz
transformation. There is no experimental or mathematical proof for the
nonexistence of an undetectable, absolute frame of reference.

http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No violations of Lorentz invariance ever found, and nothing in the
intervening 3 years. Plus it is impossible to prove that something
does not exist.
Just because you have an education in mathematics _DOES NOT MEAN_ you
are a physicist.
[...]

Physicists haven't developed any of the math of special or general
relativity, which is the subject of this thread.

Thank you for reminding us that you have no education in physics,
Shooby.

Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	13 May 2007 07:13:46 PM

On May 13, 1:51 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Tell me Eugene - why is it you still have refrained from detailing the
kinematical aspects of relativity? Why have you ignored energy,
momentum, the relativistic invariants, and the metric? Why have you
ignored what physics has recognize as important for nearly a full
century now?
.

User: "Igor"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	14 May 2007 01:04:03 PM

On May 13, 4:51 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

wiki/ZFC

Do you understand the implications? Mathematical fantasies exist. If
they exist in pure math they can also exist in physics. Consequently,
there is no need to cry heresy when I admit the possibility that
Special Relativity theory is a logically consistent mathematical
fantasy. Constructibility is a legitimate question in the
mathematization of physics. If replacing existentially doubtful
postulates with more mathematically revealing axioms is my crime
(http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf) then let
mathematicians condemn me for my error. I will not apologize for my
unabashed irreverence for the careless and uncritical thinking
perpetuated by the high priests of physics.

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert's
axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beating
a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

Please leave it to mathematicians to explain the successes and
failures in Hilbert's program for the foundations of mathematics and
Hilbert's challenge in his famous 6th problem to axiomatize all of
physics. Above all, please believe Hilbert when he said, "Physics is
too difficult for physicists." I have only quoted Hilbert's true
statements.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfhttp://arxiv.org=

/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf

Shubee

Rather than making us tramp through the swamps and thickets of your
logical gobbletygook, please provide just one example of a situation
where SR is internally inconsistent. And please give to us in the
language used in physics, and not in your made up pie in the sky
nonsense. Your pdf files do nothing but talk in circles.
.

User: "Daryl McCullough"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	14 May 2007 03:13:04 PM

Igor says...

Rather than making us tramp through the swamps and thickets of your
logical gobbletygook, please provide just one example of a situation
where SR is internally inconsistent.

Unlike some anti-relativists, Shubee is *not* saying that SR
is inconsistent. He's saying it is consistent, but false:

Consequently,
there is no need to cry heresy when I admit the possibility that
Special Relativity theory is a logically consistent mathematical
fantasy.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.

User: "Igor"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 11:09:36 AM

Daryl McCullough wrote:

Igor says...

Rather than making us tramp through the swamps and thickets of your
logical gobbletygook, please provide just one example of a situation
where SR is internally inconsistent.

Unlike some anti-relativists, Shubee is *not* saying that SR
is inconsistent. He's saying it is consistent, but false:

If that's the case, he's a much bigger nut case than I ever envisioned.
.

User: "Shubee"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 06:23:36 PM

On May 15, 9:09 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

Daryl McCullough wrote:

Igor says...

Rather than making us tramp through the swamps and thickets of your
logical gobbletygook, please provide just one example of a situation
where SR is internally inconsistent.

Unlike some anti-relativists, Shubee is *not* saying that SR
is inconsistent. He's saying it is consistent, but false:

If that's the case, he's a much bigger nut case than I ever envisioned.

I only noticed that you've expressed your opinions dogmatically
without citing proof or stating an argument and that you have revealed
yourself to be truly clueless about standard results in mathematics.
Why not give everyone else a big laugh and state your expertise and
academic credentials?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 06:31:59 PM

On May 15, 4:23 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<Scooby Doo Doo's self advertisment snipped>
Scooby Doo Doo
How are you doing with solving the big problem in your ***** theory:
how is the inversion of your transforms going? Still no answer after
all these months?
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 06:33:41 PM

On May 15, 4:31 pm,

wrote:

On May 15, 4:23 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<Scooby Doo Doo's self advertisment snipped>

Scooby Doo Doo

How are you doing with solving the big problem in your ***** theory:
how is the inversion of your transforms going? Still no answer after
all these months?

I'm surprised he hasn't touched energy or momentum after pushing his
"replacement theory" for several years now. It is almost as if he
thinks SR is only about the Lorentz transforms - it certainly would be
consistent with having no education in physics.
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 06:46:53 PM

Shubee wrote:

I only noticed that you've expressed your opinions dogmatically
without citing proof or stating an argument and that you have revealed
yourself to be truly clueless about standard results in mathematics.
Why not give everyone else a big laugh and state your expertise and
academic credentials?

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

I don't even have to have a 8th grade education to report that the
sun is hot. Here's a little experiment that you can do to convince
yourself that is the case--using mirror or lenses focus the sun's
radiation onto a small area. measure the temperature. The greater
the efficiency the close one can approach the surface temperature
of the sun.
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	14 May 2007 03:22:31 PM

On May 14, 1:13 pm,

(Daryl McCullough)
wrote:

Igor says...

Rather than making us tramp through the swamps and thickets of your
logical gobbletygook, please provide just one example of a situation
where SR is internally inconsistent.

Unlike some anti-relativists, Shubee is *not* saying that SR
is inconsistent. He's saying it is consistent, but false:

That's an entirely fair statement!
Asserting that SR is internally consistent but not consistent with
reality is a specific assertion that is experimentally testable.
Therein lies the rub though - Shooby is doing everything possible to
_recover_ SR!
He makes several explicit choices of arbitrary functions and constants
such that SR is recovered, ignoring other possibilities. What sense
does it make to say SR is false if all you are going to do is get back
to where you started?

Consequently,
there is no need to cry heresy when I admit the possibility that
Special Relativity theory is a logically consistent mathematical
fantasy.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

User: "Shubee"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 06:54:14 PM

On May 14, 11:04 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

On May 13, 4:51 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Kurt G=F6del showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is consistent
with the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even if the axiom of
choice is adopted. Then in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that the negation of
the Continuum Hypothesis is also consistent with those same axioms.
Hence, the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. Both of these
results assume that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms themselves do not
contain a contradiction; this assumption is widely believed to be
true.

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia....

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert's
axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beating
a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfhttp://arxiv...

Shubee

Eric Gisse claimed recently to understand http://www.everythingimportant.or=
g/relativity/special.pdf
and he is a college dropout in math/physics. Are you confessing that
that ignoramus is smarter than you are?
Shubee
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 07:20:32 PM

On May 15, 4:54 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 14, 11:04 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

On May 13, 4:51 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Kurt G=F6del showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is consiste=

with the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even if the axiom of
choice is adopted. Then in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that the negation of
the Continuum Hypothesis is also consistent with those same axioms.
Hence, the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. Both of these
results assume that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms themselves do not
contain a contradiction; this assumption is widely believed to be
true.

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia..=

..=2E

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert's
axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beating
a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfhttp://arxiv.=

..=2E

Shubee

Eric Gisse claimed recently to understandhttp://www.everythingimportant.o=

rg/relativity/special.pdf

and he is a college dropout in math/physics. Are you confessing that
that ignoramus is smarter than you are?

Shubee

Who are you to talk, Scooby Doo Doo.
You think that :
1=2E Recursive functions can be inverted (NOT!)
2=2E You have an "axiomatic" theory of relativity that has non-
invertible transforms (also ...NOT!)
Shubee stands for "Stubborn *****".
.

User: "Don Stockbauer"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 07:36:33 PM

On May 15, 7:20 pm,

wrote:

On May 15, 4:54 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 14, 11:04 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

On May 13, 4:51 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Then your physics professors owe you an apology for training you to
believe in a false and blissfully ignorant view of mathematical log=

and you ought to speak to your physics department and university ab=

out

trying to get some of your tuition back.

Kurt G=F6del showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is consis=

tent

with the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even if the axiom of
choice is adopted. Then in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that the negation=

the Continuum Hypothesis is also consistent with those same axioms.
Hence, the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. Both of these
results assume that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms themselves do not
contain a contradiction; this assumption is widely believed to be
true.

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia=

..=2E..

Do you understand the implications? Mathematical fantasies exist. If
they exist in pure math they can also exist in physics. Consequentl=

there is no need to cry heresy when I admit the possibility that
Special Relativity theory is a logically consistent mathematical
fantasy. Constructibility is a legitimate question in the
mathematization of physics. If replacing existentially doubtful
postulates with more mathematically revealing axioms is my crime
(http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf) then let
mathematicians condemn me for my error. I will not apologize for my
unabashed irreverence for the careless and uncritical thinking
perpetuated by the high priests of physics.

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert=

axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beati=

a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfhttp://arxi=

v=2E..

Shubee

Eric Gisse claimed recently to understandhttp://www.everythingimportant=

..org/relativity/special.pdf

and he is a college dropout in math/physics. Are you confessing that
that ignoramus is smarter than you are?

Shubee

Who are you to talk, Scooby Doo Doo.
You think that :

1. Recursive functions can be inverted (NOT!)
2. You have an "axiomatic" theory of relativity that has non-
invertible transforms (also ...NOT!)

Shubee stands for "Stubborn *****".

Recursive: see recursive.
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 07:51:47 PM

On May 15, 4:54 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 14, 11:04 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

On May 13, 4:51 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Kurt G=F6del showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is consiste=

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia..=

..=2E

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert's
axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beating
a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfhttp://arxiv.=

..=2E

Shubee

Eric Gisse claimed recently to understandhttp://www.everythingimportant.o=

rg/relativity/special.pdf

and he is a college dropout in math/physics. Are you confessing that
that ignoramus is smarter than you are?

Since when am I a dropout, Shooby?

Shubee

User: "Shubee"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 08:30:04 PM

On May 15, 5:51 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 15, 4:54 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 14, 11:04 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

On May 13, 4:51 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Then your physics professors owe you an apology for training you to
believe in a false and blissfully ignorant view of mathematical log=

and you ought to speak to your physics department and university ab=

out

trying to get some of your tuition back.

Kurt G=F6del showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is consis=

tent

with the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even if the axiom of
choice is adopted. Then in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that the negation=

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia=

..=2E..

Do you understand the implications? Mathematical fantasies exist. If
they exist in pure math they can also exist in physics. Consequentl=

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert=

axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beati=

a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfhttp://arxi=

v=2E..

Shubee

Eric Gisse claimed recently to understandhttp://www.everythingimportant=

..org/relativity/special.pdf

and he is a college dropout in math/physics. Are you confessing that
that ignoramus is smarter than you are?

Since when am I a dropout, Shooby?

In Nov 2004 you claimed to be doing a double major in math and physics
and almost a junior.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/afa83041228569d0
I figure you dropped out because you never mentioned being able to
pass any of your upper division work. I expected you to boast about
that. Are you now claiming to have graduated in physics and that you
almost understand http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
?
Shubee
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 09:24:16 PM

On May 15, 6:30 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 15, 5:51 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 15, 4:54 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 14, 11:04 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

On May 13, 4:51 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Then your physics professors owe you an apology for training you =

believe in a false and blissfully ignorant view of mathematical l=

ogic

and you ought to speak to your physics department and university =

about

trying to get some of your tuition back.

Kurt G=F6del showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is cons=

istent

with the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even if the axiom =

choice is adopted. Then in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that the negati=

on of

the Continuum Hypothesis is also consistent with those same axiom=

s=2E

Hence, the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. Both of th=

ese

results assume that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms themselves do not
contain a contradiction; this assumption is widely believed to be
true.

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) =

(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesishttp://en.wikiped=

ia....

Do you understand the implications? Mathematical fantasies exist.=

they exist in pure math they can also exist in physics. Consequen=

tly,

let

mathematicians condemn me for my error. I will not apologize for =

unabashed irreverence for the careless and uncritical thinking
perpetuated by the high priests of physics.

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbe=

rt's

axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on bea=

ting

a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

Please leave it to mathematicians to explain the successes and
failures in Hilbert's program for the foundations of mathematics =

and

Hilbert's challenge in his famous 6th problem to axiomatize all of
physics. Above all, please believe Hilbert when he said, "Physics=

too difficult for physicists." I have only quoted Hilbert's true
statements.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfhttp://ar=

xiv...

Shubee

Eric Gisse claimed recently to understandhttp://www.everythingimporta=

nt.org/relativity/special.pdf

and he is a college dropout in math/physics. Are you confessing that
that ignoramus is smarter than you are?

Since when am I a dropout, Shooby?

In Nov 2004 you claimed to be doing a double major in math and physics
and almost a junior.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity=

/msg/afa83041228...
Stalker-rific, Shooby.
I changed my mind. That statement was made before I had taken any of
the proofs-based upper division math courses. Those are frightfully
uninteresting and tedious, and especially unrelated to the topics I am
interested in.

I figure you dropped out because you never mentioned being able to
pass any of your upper division work. I expected you to boast about
that. Are you now claiming to have graduated in physics and that you
almost understandhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
?

What, were you expecting a long self-congratulatory post about me
passing my upper division courses? I guess this will be it - the
backbone of my physics degree is complete. This semester [on Saturday]
was when I polished off my 2nd semester mechanics, electrodynamics and
modern physics courses, along with solid state physics. Of the physics
core, I have two semesters of advanced lab and a semester of optics -
a fair part of which I already understand via my electrodynamics
coursework. The rest of my degree is just filler - humanities core,
"library sciences", etc.
My knowledge of physics as far as my bachelors is concerned is pretty
much complete. It is enough to find massive holes in your paper,
though.
You continually assert that SR is wrong in one fashion or another, but
you make several choices of arbitrary functions and constants in your
"derivation" that explicitly recover SR - despite having alternative
choices. You don't understand that SR has no known empirical
falsification and that it is internally consistent via group theory.
I had a nicely detailed argument here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1f2cb900f0d9bf29?=
dmode=3Dsource
But then you decided you needed to make another thread, and you
decided to simply abandon the discussion.
Tell me shooby - in the 5 years or so you have been pushing your
"derivation" of SR, why have you not even once given due consideration
to energy and momentum? Why have you spent the last 5 years focusing
on the Lorentz transformations and not giving even one iota of
attention to energy and momentum? It is almost as if you don't
actually know anything about relativity other than the Lorentz
transformations in one dimension. Can you tell me what the Lorentz
transformations about the y-t plane would be? How about a Lorentz
transformation to a frame moving along an axis that is not along a
coordinate axis?

Shubee

User: ""
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 10:00:15 PM

On May 15, 7:24 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can you tell me what the Lorentz
transformations about the y-t plane would be? How about a Lorentz
transformation to a frame moving along an axis that is not along a
coordinate axis?

He,he,he
You are asking the shihead too much :-)
The Scooby - ***** can't even invert a function.....
.

User: "Shubee"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 10:24:14 PM

On May 15, 7:38 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

So what's wrong with SR, Shooby?
Be sure to explain what is wrong with SR while explaining how
obtaining the _exact same thing_ in your paper avoids what is
wrong with SR.

Unlike Einstein and his cult followers, I don't presuppose the
nonexistence of an absolute frame of reference. Unlike LET, I don't
presuppose the existence of an absolute frame of reference. I derive
the Lorentz transformation without those unnecessary assumptions. I
then show that spacetime models exist that are governed by the Lorentz
transformation equations where an absolute frame of reference exists.
I also admit the observation that no spacetime model exists which
represents Einsteinian SR. For instance, note the existence of the
distinguished, unique observer in Minkowski diagrams. He gets an
orthogonal coordinate system. All other observers get different kinds
of oblique coordinates.
http://www.etsu.edu/math/gardner/5310/5310pdf/dg2-8.pdf
Consider the meaning of my thread titled, Constructibility and
Mathematical Existence. I posit that Einsteinian SR has no
mathematical existence in the Hilbert atlas of all conceivable
universes.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 10:38:42 PM

On May 15, 8:24 pm, Scoby Doo Doo <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

For instance, note the existence of the
distinguished, unique observer in Minkowski diagrams. He gets an
orthogonal coordinate system. All other observers get different kinds
of oblique coordinates.

Hahahahahahahahaha
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 11:01:47 PM

On May 15, 8:24 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

Consider the meaning of my thread titled, Constructibility and
Mathematical Existence. I posit that Einsteinian SR has no
mathematical existence in the Hilbert atlas of all conceivable
universes.

Poor little shooby continues to not understand how the Lorentz group
is equal to special relativity...

Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

User: "Shubee"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	16 May 2007 06:56:51 PM

On May 15, 9:01 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 15, 8:24 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

Consider the meaning of my thread titled, Constructibility and
Mathematical Existence. I posit that Einsteinian SR has no
mathematical existence in the Hilbert atlas of all conceivable
universes.

Poor little shooby continues to not understand how the Lorentz group
is equal to special relativity...

It's fine with me that you believe that because that means that I've
derived relativity without assuming Einstein's first or second
postulate.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 10:53:09 PM

Shubee wrote:

Unlike Einstein and his cult followers...

Eugene cite *one* observation that contradicts a prediction
of special relativity?
Eugene cite *one* observation that contradicts a prediction
of general relativity?
Empirical data continues to show that Einstein was right.
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	13 May 2007 10:17:57 PM

Shubee wrote:

Kurt G�del showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is consistent
with the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even if the axiom of
choice is adopted. Then in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that the negation of
the Continuum Hypothesis is also consistent with those same axioms.
Hence, the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. Both of these
results assume that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms themselves do not
contain a contradiction; this assumption is widely believed to be
true.

And the specific application to physics is?
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence	15 May 2007 08:03:57 PM

Shubee wrote:

On May 13, 10:36 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

I know enough about mathematics to know that it's only
required to be internally consistent.

Then your physics professors owe you an apology for training you to
believe in a false and blissfully ignorant view of mathematical logic
and you ought to speak to your physics department and university about
trying to get some of your tuition back.

Kurt G�del showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is consistent
with the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even if the axiom of
choice is adopted. Then in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that the negation of
the Continuum Hypothesis is also consistent with those same axioms.
Hence, the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. Both of these
results assume that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms themselves do not
contain a contradiction; this assumption is widely believed to be
true.

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFC

Do you understand the implications? Mathematical fantasies exist. If
they exist in pure math they can also exist in physics. Consequently,
there is no need to cry heresy when I admit the possibility that
Special Relativity theory is a logically consistent mathematical
fantasy. Constructibility is a legitimate question in the
mathematization of physics. If replacing existentially doubtful
postulates with more mathematically revealing axioms is my crime
( http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf ) then let
mathematicians condemn me for my error. I will not apologize for my
unabashed irreverence for the careless and uncritical thinking
perpetuated by the high priests of physics.

I also know that Godel revealed the severe limitations of Hilbert's
axiomatic approach seventy years ago. But if you insist on beating
a dead horse, you're welcome to it. Just don't call it physics.

Please leave it to mathematicians to explain the successes and
failures in Hilbert's program for the foundations of mathematics and
Hilbert's challenge in his famous 6th problem to axiomatize all of
physics. Above all, please believe Hilbert when he said, "Physics is
too difficult for physicists." I have only quoted Hilbert's true
statements.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf

Shubee

Can Eugene give *one* observation that contradicts a prediction
of special relativity?
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

The formal proof for the existence of the "other world" ("afterworld" - "counter-world") completed with the use of methods of mathematical logic
"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
European physics experiment threatens existence
If space has virtual particle popping into and out of existence all the time...?
sense, existence, knowledge
"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
Nullity, the BBC, Trivials, Existence
Evidence for the existence of absolute time

"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
Evidence for the Existence of God
Existence of controllable antigravity has been shown and the crooked academia ignores it