On Mar 11, 11:49 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the **** you are talking about.

Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
assumptions.

Intellectual dishonesty - not just for breakfast anymore.


"What the ****" the assumptions are irrelevant, that they exist is
trivially true.

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 11, 7:07 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.

Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,


Try reading reference 3 which says, "Unfortunately, quantum field
theory suffers from ultraviolet problems: the field at a point is not
well-defined. To get around this, we introduce the idea of smearing
over a test function to tame the UV divergences which arise even in a
free field theory." Divergences on the very definition of a quantum
field indicate a mathematical failure on meaning.

Idiot. The reciprocal function diverges at zero - do you think that
means arithmetic isn't axiomatized?



If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.


Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry.

What are you jabbering about now? Einstein specified how clocks were to
be set - that's a given.

You obviously don't know the first
principles of spacetime.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message ups.com...
On Mar 11, 11:49 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the **** you are talking about.

Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
assumptions.

Intellectual dishonesty - not just for breakfast anymore.

He will not answer.
Schoenfeld is a troll of the schizopheric paranoic kind.
See also
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...loyerHope.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Thanks.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Confusion.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/DisCont.html
In short, the kind of person you definitely do not want to
bump into on the streets when no one else is around.

Dirk Vdm

On Mar 13, 2:56 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 11:49 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the **** you are talking about.

Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
assumptions.

Intellectual dishonesty - not just for breakfast anymore.

He will not answer.

I did answer but it's obvious that he, and you, don't have the
competence to understand the answer. This is not surprising as you do
not understand the subject matter either.

Here it is again:

Structure A is a group.
Structure B is a group.

Start with a group and recover A (not B) without any assumptions. You
cannot. Therefore you need assumptions. Those assumptions must exist
as you could go the other way.

One more time:

A GROUP STRUCTURE IS AN INSUFFICIENT CONDITION TO RECOVER MINKOWSKI
SPACETIME

This is very basic stuff.

Schoenfeld is a troll of the schizopheric paranoic kind.
In short, the kind of person you definitely do not want to
bump into on the streets when no one else is around.

Since you are implicitly referring to my many previous posts where I
(attempt) to reveal the 9/11 and Apollo Hoaxes, you can probably get
away with those sorts of insults and innuendo as most people simply
don't have the honesty or competence to look at the data objectively.

However, I have much confidence that common sense and reason will
eventually prevail.

On Mar 12, 1:45 pm, wrote:
On Mar 13, 2:56 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 11:49 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the **** you are talking about.

Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
assumptions.

Intellectual dishonesty - not just for breakfast anymore.

He will not answer.

I did answer but it's obvious that he, and you, don't have the
competence to understand the answer. This is not surprising as you do
not understand the subject matter either.

Here it is again:

Structure A is a group.
Structure B is a group.

Start with a group and recover A (not B) without any assumptions. You
cannot. Therefore you need assumptions. Those assumptions must exist
as you could go the other way.

Of course you need assumptions, you dishonest moron.


One more time:

A GROUP STRUCTURE IS AN INSUFFICIENT CONDITION TO RECOVER MINKOWSKI
SPACETIME

Tom Roberts gave you the conditions necessary to recover special
relativity from group theory.

Intellectual dishonesty is more than a hobby for you - it is a
defining characteristic!


This is very basic stuff.

Schoenfeld is a troll of the schizopheric paranoic kind.
In short, the kind of person you definitely do not want to
bump into on the streets when no one else is around.

Since you are implicitly referring to my many previous posts where I
(attempt) to reveal the 9/11 and Apollo Hoaxes, you can probably get
away with those sorts of insults and innuendo as most people simply
don't have the honesty or competence to look at the data objectively.

Yes, you are the oooonnnllyy one who can see the truth. You are the
chosen one.

Do the voices tell you what you need to know, or do they simply keep
you company?


However, I have much confidence that common sense and reason will
eventually prevail.

They already have.

On Mar 12, 5:15 am, jem wrote:
Shubee wrote:

If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.

Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry.

What are you jabbering about now? Einstein specified how clocks were to
be set - that's a given.

Your understanding of nonlinear Lorentz transformations is senseless.
Ask Tom Roberts to explain why.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

On Mar 12, 3:20 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:15 am, jem wrote:



Shubee wrote:
If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.

Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry.

What are you jabbering about now? Einstein specified how clocks were to
be set - that's a given.

Your understanding of nonlinear Lorentz transformations is senseless.

Lorentz transformations are linear, dude.

It is hard to have homogeneity of space and time with nonlinear
functions of both.

Ask Tom Roberts to explain why.

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

On Mar 12, 4:28 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 12, 3:20 pm, "Shubee" wrote:



On Mar 12, 5:15 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:
If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.

Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry.

What are you jabbering about now? Einstein specified how clocks were to
be set - that's a given.

Your understanding of nonlinear Lorentz transformations is senseless.

Lorentz transformations are linear, dude.

Correct. By definition, Lorentz transformations are linear.

It is hard to have homogeneity of space and time with nonlinear
functions of both.

Nonsense. It's easy to define "nonlinear Lorentz transformations."

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...eneralized.htm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee

[Schoenfeld]
The Poincare group of SR derives from geometric considerations. You
cannot go the other way (without hidden assumptions and/or axioms).

[Gissed]
If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the **** you are talking about.

[Schoenfeld explains hidden assumptions]

[Deranged Dork]
He will not answer.

[Schoenfeld]
I did answer but it's obvious that he, and you, don't have the
competence to understand the answer. This is not surprising as you do
not understand the subject matter either.

[Schoenfeld explains again]

[Gissed]
Of course you need assumptions, you dishonest moron.


Since you are implicitly referring to my many previous posts where I
(attempt) to reveal the 9/11 and Apollo Hoaxes, you can probably get
away with those sorts of insults and innuendo as most people simply
don't have the honesty or competence to look at the data objectively.

Yes, you are the oooonnnllyy one who can see the truth. You are the
chosen one.

Many more people more intelligent than me discovered most of the flaws
in those hoaxes long before I came along. Although, I'll admit, I
never saw any Solomon Brothers Building free fall physics analysis and/
or calculations being discussed in blogs / videos until after I posted
some stuff on usenet several years ago. Same goes for momentum
conservation violation. I'm sure I wasn't nearly the first to discover
these baby-physics facts, but that people like you and Dork who after
all these years still don't understand is indicative of something.

On Mar 12, 4:00 pm, wrote:
[Schoenfeld]
The Poincare group of SR derives from geometric considerations. You
cannot go the other way (without hidden assumptions and/or axioms).

[Gissed]
If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the **** you are talking about.

[Schoenfeld explains hidden assumptions]

[Deranged Dork]
He will not answer.

[Schoenfeld]
I did answer but it's obvious that he, and you, don't have the
competence to understand the answer. This is not surprising as you do
not understand the subject matter either.

[Schoenfeld explains again]

[Gissed]
Of course you need assumptions, you dishonest moron.

Since you are implicitly referring to my many previous posts where I
(attempt) to reveal the 9/11 and Apollo Hoaxes, you can probably get
away with those sorts of insults and innuendo as most people simply
don't have the honesty or competence to look at the data objectively.

Yes, you are the oooonnnllyy one who can see the truth. You are the
chosen one.

Many more people more intelligent than me discovered most of the flaws
in those hoaxes long before I came along. Although, I'll admit, I
never saw any Solomon Brothers Building free fall physics analysis and/
or calculations being discussed in blogs / videos until after I posted
some stuff on usenet several years ago. Same goes for momentum
conservation violation. I'm sure I wasn't nearly the first to discover
these baby-physics facts, but that people like you and Dork who after
all these years still don't understand is indicative of something.

You just can't stop bringing up 9/11 and Apollo as if they some how
make you less insane and stupid.