"Bill Hobba" wrote in message news:...
Regarding his theory on SR Perfectly Innocent wrote:
You misunderstand me. I'm referring to the mythology and hype about
relative simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/v...hp?p=2022#2022 i.e.,
the standard topology of FRW cosmology.

Einstein and others arguments about simultaneity are meant to add
pictorial
vividness to SR. The basis of SR lies not in such arguments but in the
Lorentz transformations that follow from the POR (a principle that your
generalized Lorentz transformations violate). At no stage did Einstein or
any other writer I am aware of consider a (S^3)xR topology - so there is
no
'mythology and hype about relative simultaneity in a universe with a
presumed (S^3)xR topology'. The straw man argument again. What you may
be
trying to say is that you have found a (S^3)xR topology theory that has
some
interesting consequences. Big deal - as Tom Roberts pointed out your
theory
is similar to what others have considered. But it is not SR because it
breaks the POR - the basis of SR.

Bill Hobba wrote:
SR and GR deals with 2 completely different things.

Perfectly Innocent replied:
I agree that there's a confusion of the two but the confusion is that
of the general physics community:

So we have another nobody who claims he has made some momentous discovery
that the physics community are totally unaware of. Tom Roberts in his
reply
pointed out that theories similar to yours have been around for some time.
Still one thing you are yet to address - why do you reject the POR?

Bill Hobba wrote:
so your reasoning is felicitous


Perfectly Innocent replied:
Yes indeed, my reasoning is felicitous, which means: 1: VERY WELL
SUITED OR EXPRESSED. 2: PLEASANT, DELIGHTFUL. Thank you for saying
so.

You know some people get their jollies in the strangest places. I make a
typo and he really goes to town. Stephen Speicher and Bilge will often
pick
up typos I make and acknowledge them as such then point out the irony.
However they are genuinely knowledgeable and intelligent people who can
spot
a typo when it is made. However you do not seem to be able to see that.
It
was meant to be false and was garbled by the spell checker. You know
false
as in incorrect, not conforming to facts or truth, mistaken - resulting
from
a mistaken belief or misunderstanding, deliberately deceptive - done with
or
having the intention of deceiving somebody, not genuine - intentionally
made
or adopted to deceive somebody.

Bill Hobba wrote:
Now SR by definition deals with frames of reference that
are inertial - one of the properties of an inertial frame being it
obeys the axioms of Euclidian geometry - axioms you have specifically
violated.


Perfectly Innocent wrote:
I have not violated any axioms. I have created my own axioms. Now, I
admit that I have violated a religious taboo in physics--"Thou shalt
not create thine own axioms" which is not an axiom, just a deeply
religious guideline.

That is not the taboo you have violated - the taboo is creating your own
axioms without acknowledging that you have done so and providing physical
motivation for doing so. You create a theory that does not conform to the
fundamental axiom of SR and expect people to embrace it without physical
motivation for doing what your doing. You write deliberate falsehoods on
your site such as:

' If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr.
Tom
Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute time
order
on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable; it isn't math or physics; it's
just semantics. If that is true, then we could just as easily replace
non-order with order.'

That was not the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists -
Bilge is also professionally trained and he and Tom Roberts had an
interesting discussion about your ideas. The upshot was your theory may
be
locally equivalent to SR (and Bilge was not convinced of that) but was not
globally equivalent.

You show unbelievable conceit by comparing what you write to greats like
Feynman. The list goes on and on. That is why you are not liked by many
of
the people who post here. You need a big dose of reality. Again I ask
for
your physical justification for breaking the POR.

Bill Hobba wrote:
Tom Roberts has posted a very compelling derivation of the Lorentz
transformations. I now ask you to find the exact point of logic in
his
reasoning you disagree with.


Perfectly Innocent wrote:
I don't disagree with his derivation at all. I just believe that it's
dull, uninspired, unintuitive and without practical insight. In
addition, I prefer to not make unessential assumptions.

The unessential assumption Tom Robert's makes is contained in his
ISOTROPY/HOMOGENEITY POSTULATE: "The transformation must have the same
mathematical form for any origin of coordinates; this applies to time,
as well." That's not a physical constraint on space or time. It's a
constraint on coordinates. He's basically assuming that the
transformation is linear and later pretends that linearity is a
derived consequence.


Again unbelievable conceit. But we may be finally getting to the crux of
the
physical motivation for your ideas. The reason is the
'ISOTROPY/HOMOGENEITY
POSTULATE' as you call it is not really a postulate - it follows directly
from the Principle of Relativity. And again I ask you for you physical
motivation for rejecting that axiom.

Bill Hobba wrote:
Failure to do so will label you for what I believe you are - a fraud.


Perfectly Innocent wrote:
If you want to prove me a fraud, why not expose the exact point in my
reasoning that you disagree with?

The exact point in your reasoning I disagree with is your refusal to
justify
the physical basis for breaking the POR. But I am beginning to tire of
the
nonsense you write. You wrote you do not agree with the
isotropy/homogeneity postulate. This is a direct consequence of the POR.
Ir is obvious your do not agree with the POR. What I want you to do is
explain your understanding of the POR and your reason for rejecting it.
Not
some redirection to your site - but a direct answer to my question.

This is really getting on my nerves
Bill


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003