Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672437 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-26 21:01 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-08-27 14:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 85 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-26 21:01 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 15:24 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 17:35 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 15:39 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 18:19 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:29 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 18:49 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:51 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 19:01 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 17:11 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 19:20 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 19:23 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 22:20 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 05:46 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 10:19 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 16:04 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 14:26 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 16:34 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 14:40 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 16:50 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 14:57 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 17:12 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:15 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 17:26 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:30 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 17:37 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:42 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 17:46 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 18:41 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 11:57 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 14:08 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 12:20 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 14:18 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 12:24 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 17:35 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 15:42 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 18:07 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 16:12 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 18:32 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 16:36 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 18:47 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 16:51 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 19:19 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:25 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in Geometry Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-29 18:04 -0700
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-30 07:34 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 10:43 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-30 14:21 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 12:50 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-30 15:36 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 13:55 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-30 16:19 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 14:32 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-30 18:21 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 16:45 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-30 19:31 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 22:26 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 08:15 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 08:47 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 13:31 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 16:36 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 14:46 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Trappings of Einstein Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-31 08:09 -0700
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Trappings of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 15:40 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 17:16 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 15:39 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 17:58 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 16:05 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 18:15 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 16:19 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 18:35 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 16:38 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 19:01 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 17:07 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 19:50 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 19:27 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Proclus Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-31 19:34 -0700
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Proclus Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-31 20:53 -0700
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Proclus Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 11:39 -0700
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 18:53 +0200
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 16:55 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 11:58 +0000
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in The Shit of Einstein Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 09:01 -0700
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in QM with GR > SR Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 09:25 -0700
Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in QM with GR > SR The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-27 14:36 -0700
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njAY3Cgkdy6LJ1Jz2WHK2jGt3M0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672552 |
> he didn't say that God didn't create creationistic species. No, Maciej. "Creationistic species" would be a subclass of species. "Euclidean geometry" is the THEORY in which the theorem is proved. You discovered the object-language/metalangage distinction yesterday and have now managed to confuse the two sides of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 11:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xZzeXCUkpgiJM1hXWxipeS93yLE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672515 |
Maciej,
> Of course, he claimed nothing about anything
> "Euclidean", rather obvious since he lived
> about 300 years earlier.
Indeed.
Pythagoras didn't call it "Euclidean geometry".
He didn't write
a^2 + b^2 = c^2
either.
Modern terminology and notation have this curious habit of being
invented after ancient mathematicians died.
None of that turns
every Euclidean right triangle satisfies Pythagoras
into
every object subsequently called a "right triangle" in every
possible geometry satisfies Pythagoras.
And Einstein never claimed Pythagoras was false for Euclidean right
triangles.
So your argument has now become:
Pythagoras didn't use a qualification invented centuries later,
therefore his theorem must apply to every geometry invented
centuries later.
For one of the best logicians Humanity ever had, that's an
interesting treatment of chronology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <l-adnYYSDtMCwg33nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672453 |
On 08/27/2026 08:24 AM, Python wrote: > Le 26/08/2026 à 21:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> >> No it doesn't. The Shit of Einstein >> is claiming basic math false. >> >> And your bunch of idiots think >> that saying "it doesn't hold" >> instead "it is false" makes >> somehow great (though unspecified) >> difference. > > Maciej, > > No. You are still confusing > > "the hypotheses of a theorem are not satisfied" > > with > > "the theorem is false". > > For a Euclidean right triangle, Pythagoras says > > a^2 + b^2 = c^2. > > Einstein, Minkowski, GR, SR, "The Shit", Satan, GPS and the metric system > do not change that by one epsilon. > > If the geometry under consideration is not Euclidean, the Euclidean > Pythagorean theorem need not apply. That does not make it "false", for > roughly the same reason that > > "x^2 >= 0 for every real x" > > is not refuted by observing that i^2 = -1. > > The hypothesis "x is real" matters. > > Likewise, the hypothesis "Euclidean geometry" matters. > > This distinction between > > false > > and > > not applicable because its hypotheses are not satisfied > > is not some clever relativistic escape hatch. It is elementary logic. > > Which makes this an especially unfortunate hill to die on for someone who > advertises himself as "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had". > > But by all means, ask a mathematician whether a theorem is "refuted" when > you remove one of its hypotheses. > > And when the mathematician gives you the same answer, you can accuse > mathematics of being part of The Shit too. One doesn't need the Pythagorean theorem to make sine and cosine, instead of a right triangle with the right angle at the center of a circle, an equilateral triangle unhinged at one vertex with its angles evolving at the same rate and marching that up a line also draws the sine/cosine curves, thus "N-lateral-ometry" to result also makes for every other regular polygon also making their own families of orthogonal curves. If it's not Euclidean it's not geometry, beyond Euclidean geometry is super-Euclidean geometry and re-Euclidean geometry. Time reversibility has never been falsified, theory doesn't need more than a ray of time, and according to science, doesn't allow more, either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 09:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in QM with GR > SR |
| Message-ID | <8RydnUIx69iK-A33nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672462 |
On 08/27/2026 09:01 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 08/27/2026 08:24 AM, Python wrote:
>> Le 26/08/2026 à 21:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. The Shit of Einstein
>>> is claiming basic math false.
>>>
>>> And your bunch of idiots think
>>> that saying "it doesn't hold"
>>> instead "it is false" makes
>>> somehow great (though unspecified)
>>> difference.
>>
>> Maciej,
>>
>> No. You are still confusing
>>
>> "the hypotheses of a theorem are not satisfied"
>>
>> with
>>
>> "the theorem is false".
>>
>> For a Euclidean right triangle, Pythagoras says
>>
>> a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
>>
>> Einstein, Minkowski, GR, SR, "The Shit", Satan, GPS and the metric system
>> do not change that by one epsilon.
>>
>> If the geometry under consideration is not Euclidean, the Euclidean
>> Pythagorean theorem need not apply. That does not make it "false", for
>> roughly the same reason that
>>
>> "x^2 >= 0 for every real x"
>>
>> is not refuted by observing that i^2 = -1.
>>
>> The hypothesis "x is real" matters.
>>
>> Likewise, the hypothesis "Euclidean geometry" matters.
>>
>> This distinction between
>>
>> false
>>
>> and
>>
>> not applicable because its hypotheses are not satisfied
>>
>> is not some clever relativistic escape hatch. It is elementary logic.
>>
>> Which makes this an especially unfortunate hill to die on for someone who
>> advertises himself as "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had".
>>
>> But by all means, ask a mathematician whether a theorem is "refuted" when
>> you remove one of its hypotheses.
>>
>> And when the mathematician gives you the same answer, you can accuse
>> mathematics of being part of The Shit too.
>
> One doesn't need the Pythagorean theorem to make sine and cosine,
> instead of a right triangle with the right angle at the center of
> a circle, an equilateral triangle unhinged at one vertex with its angles
> evolving at the same rate and marching that up a line also
> draws the sine/cosine curves, thus "N-lateral-ometry" to result
> also makes for every other regular polygon also making their own
> families of orthogonal curves.
>
>
> If it's not Euclidean it's not geometry, beyond Euclidean geometry
> is super-Euclidean geometry and re-Euclidean geometry.
>
>
> Time reversibility has never been falsified,
> theory doesn't need more than a ray of time,
> and according to science, doesn't allow more, either.
>
>
One problem with particle theories that are quantum mechanics
that aren't continuous quantum theories is that at the Planck
scale, there either aren't right angles or aren't straight lines,
that the notion of a spiral-singular origin, vortices for DesCartes
and Kelvin, torsional gauge fields, various accounts of BH coordinates,
Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's wishful-thinking
renormalizability about normed rings and the differences between
metric and norm, is that the particle conceit is partial, and
while in many respects successful: definitely not complete,
then the usual treatment of partial differential systems
is also definitely only an approximation, about relativity theory,
since before Galileo and then for Leibniz et alias about the
relational theory, that relativity theory since forever is
usually enough merely partial, then that various accounts that
pledge to see that the lines cross somewhere at right angles
have that Einstein's cosmological constant was less a blunder
and more a requirement then for something like Duhamel principle
for integral equations instead that actually integrate things
together instead of scratching crossing lines.
The regular singular points of the hypergeometric are {0, 1, infinity}.
Einstein: "SR is local, and I, Einstein wrote it variously
the 'spatial' for GR and 'spacial' for SR, and I meant it, too,
as you can read from their divergent definitions."
"... and it's an inertial-system."
Relativity theory, which is usually enough "motion is relative
in the formalism, which also has that light-speed is a constant
and effectively-infinite with regards to acceleration, and that's
called the 'L-principle'", that account of relativity theory is
just the same as the old one with adding mass/energy equivalency
and the mass-less character of light, then a cosmological constant
for good measure.
Integral equations including singular integrals: "For good measure, ...."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 14:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Does Pythagorean theorem hold in QM with GR > SR |
| Message-ID | <6A90ADC5.26B3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #672465 |
Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> On 08/27/2026 09:01 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On 08/27/2026 08:24 AM, Python wrote:
> >> Le 26/08/2026 à 21:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> No it doesn't. The Shit of Einstein
> >>> is claiming basic math false.
> >>>
> >>> And your bunch of idiots think
> >>> that saying "it doesn't hold"
> >>> instead "it is false" makes
> >>> somehow great (though unspecified)
> >>> difference.
> >>
> >> Maciej,
> >>
> >> No. You are still confusing
> >>
> >> "the hypotheses of a theorem are not satisfied"
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >> "the theorem is false".
> >>
> >> For a Euclidean right triangle, Pythagoras says
> >>
> >> a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
> >>
> >> Einstein, Minkowski, GR, SR, "The Shit", Satan, GPS and the metric system
> >> do not change that by one epsilon.
> >>
> >> If the geometry under consideration is not Euclidean, the Euclidean
> >> Pythagorean theorem need not apply. That does not make it "false", for
> >> roughly the same reason that
> >>
> >> "x^2 >= 0 for every real x"
> >>
> >> is not refuted by observing that i^2 = -1.
> >>
> >> The hypothesis "x is real" matters.
> >>
> >> Likewise, the hypothesis "Euclidean geometry" matters.
> >>
> >> This distinction between
> >>
> >> false
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> not applicable because its hypotheses are not satisfied
> >>
> >> is not some clever relativistic escape hatch. It is elementary logic.
> >>
> >> Which makes this an especially unfortunate hill to die on for someone who
> >> advertises himself as "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had".
> >>
> >> But by all means, ask a mathematician whether a theorem is "refuted" when
> >> you remove one of its hypotheses.
> >>
> >> And when the mathematician gives you the same answer, you can accuse
> >> mathematics of being part of The Shit too.
> >
> > One doesn't need the Pythagorean theorem to make sine and cosine,
> > instead of a right triangle with the right angle at the center of
> > a circle, an equilateral triangle unhinged at one vertex with its angles
> > evolving at the same rate and marching that up a line also
> > draws the sine/cosine curves, thus "N-lateral-ometry" to result
> > also makes for every other regular polygon also making their own
> > families of orthogonal curves.
> >
> >
> > If it's not Euclidean it's not geometry, beyond Euclidean geometry
> > is super-Euclidean geometry and re-Euclidean geometry.
> >
> >
> > Time reversibility has never been falsified,
> > theory doesn't need more than a ray of time,
> > and according to science, doesn't allow more, either.
> >
> >
>
> One problem with particle theories that are quantum mechanics
> that aren't continuous quantum theories is that at the Planck
> scale, there either aren't right angles or aren't straight lines,
> that the notion of a spiral-singular origin, vortices for DesCartes
> and Kelvin, torsional gauge fields, various accounts of BH coordinates,
> Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's wishful-thinking
> renormalizability about normed rings and the differences between
> metric and norm, is that the particle conceit is partial, and
> while in many respects successful: definitely not complete,
> then the usual treatment of partial differential systems
> is also definitely only an approximation, about relativity theory,
> since before Galileo and then for Leibniz et alias about the
> relational theory, that relativity theory since forever is
> usually enough merely partial, then that various accounts that
> pledge to see that the lines cross somewhere at right angles
> have that Einstein's cosmological constant was less a blunder
> and more a requirement then for something like Duhamel principle
> for integral equations instead that actually integrate things
> together instead of scratching crossing lines.
>
> The regular singular points of the hypergeometric are {0, 1, infinity}.
>
> Einstein: "SR is local, and I, Einstein wrote it variously
> the 'spatial' for GR and 'spacial' for SR, and I meant it, too,
> as you can read from their divergent definitions."
>
> "... and it's an inertial-system."
>
> Relativity theory, which is usually enough "motion is relative
> in the formalism, which also has that light-speed is a constant
> and effectively-infinite with regards to acceleration, and that's
> called the 'L-principle'", that account of relativity theory is
> just the same as the old one with adding mass/energy equivalency
> and the mass-less character of light, then a cosmological constant
> for good measure.
>
> Integral equations including singular integrals: "For good measure, ...."
This is not a particle theory, a relativity theory, or a mathematical
argument; it is an undisciplined collision of half-formed concepts,
historical name-dropping, and undefined terminology pretending that
association is derivation.
1. There is no actual theory here
The opening sentence claims:
"One problem with particle theories that are quantum mechanics that
aren't continuous quantum theories is that at the Planck scale, there
either aren't right angles or aren't straight lines…"
This collapses immediately.
You have not defined:
the underlying mathematical space,
its topology,
its metric,
its connection,
its dynamical variables,
its quantum state space,
its observables,
its action/Hamiltonian,
its equations of motion,
or what "continuous quantum theory" actually means.
"Quantum theories that aren't continuous" is not a usable
classification. Quantum mechanics can be formulated on continuous
Hilbert spaces, discrete systems, lattice systems, quantum field
theories, algebraic frameworks, and more. None of that implies that
"right angles" or "straight lines" cease to exist.
You are taking a possible statement about quantum geometry and
presenting it as though it were an established consequence of quantum
mechanics. It isn't.
If you mean that spacetime geometry becomes fundamentally nonclassical
near the Planck scale, say precisely what structure replaces the
classical manifold. Otherwise this is philosophical vapor.
2. "No right angles / no straight lines" is mathematically meaningless
as written
This is the worst sentence in the opening because it sounds profound
while saying almost nothing.
A right angle requires some notion of orthogonality. Orthogonality can
be defined from an inner product, metric, bilinear form, or related
structure.
A straight line requires a notion of geodesic or affine structure.
So the real question is:
Which mathematical structure disappears at the Planck scale?
Metric?
Connection?
Manifold?
Local Lorentz symmetry?
Commutativity of coordinates?
Differentiability?
Causal structure?
You never answer.
And if the claim is merely that classical Euclidean intuition fails,
congratulations: that is not remotely new. General relativity already
replaces Euclidean geometry with curved pseudo-Riemannian geometry.
Quantum gravity goes further, depending on the theory, but "geometry
becomes weird" is not a result.
It is kindergarten-level motivation for a research program, not the
research program.
3. You have committed the "laundry list equals evidence" fallacy
Then comes:
"spiral-singular origin, vortices for DesCartes and Kelvin,
torsional gauge fields, various accounts of BH coordinates, Born's
infinite self-energy and Feynman's wishful-thinking renormalizability
about normed rings…"
Stop.
This is intellectual junk-drawer physics.
Descartes ? Kelvin ? torsion ? black-hole coordinates ? Born ? Feynman ?
normed rings.
Those aren't automatically parts of one mathematical problem merely
because they can be mentioned in the same paragraph.
You need a mapping:
with explicit mathematical relationships.
Instead you have:
That is not synthesis. It is juxtaposition.
Historical associations are not derivations.
4. "Feynman’s wishful-thinking renormalizability" is historically and
mathematically sloppy
You write:
"Feynman's wishful-thinking renormalizability…"
That's rhetoric substituting for analysis.
Renormalization is not "wishful thinking." Quantum electrodynamics
became one of the most spectacularly successful predictive theories in
physics precisely because renormalization works within its domain.
If your claim is that perturbative renormalizability does not establish
ultraviolet completeness, then say that.
That is a serious statement.
If your claim is that QED's success doesn't imply that quantum field
theory is the ultimate microscopic description of spacetime, also fine.
But calling renormalizability "wishful thinking" without specifying what
mathematical failure you're identifying is just adolescent
contrarianism.
You are attacking a straw man.
5. You confuse different meanings of "norm," "metric," and geometry
You mention:
"the differences between metric and norm"
This is potentially mathematical, but you've done nothing with it.
A norm is a function
on a vector space satisfying appropriate axioms.
A metric is a distance function
Every norm induces a metric:
But not every metric arises from a norm, and a spacetime metric in
relativity is not simply interchangeable with an arbitrary normed-space
structure.
If you're trying to argue that Lorentzian geometry, Banach-space
geometry, Finsler geometry, and quantum geometry have materially
different notions of distance or orthogonality, then demonstrate the
distinction mathematically.
Currently you merely name it.
That's not an argument.
6. The hypergeometric-function sentence is a non sequitur
Then:
"The regular singular points of the hypergeometric are {0, 1,
infinity}."
Yes, for the Gauss hypergeometric differential equation, those are its
regular singular points.
And?
Nothing before it establishes why hypergeometric equations are the
relevant differential system.
Nothing afterward derives anything from them.
It is essentially:
Here is a true mathematical fact.
A true fact dropped into an unrelated paragraph does not become
evidence.
You might as well insert:
and announce that you've solved quantum gravity.
Your argument secretly depends on a mountain of premises you never
state.
You assume Planck-scale physics requires abandoning continuity
Not established.
Quantum gravity may involve discrete structures, but "Planck scale" does
not itself logically entail a discrete spacetime.
You assume classical geometry must fail in a particular way
You haven't specified whether geometry becomes:
discrete,
noncommutative,
fractal,
operator-valued,
emergent,
topologically fluctuating,
causal-set-like,
spin-network-like,
string-theoretic,
or something else.
"Not straight" is not a theory of replacement geometry.
You assume singularities indicate the wrong ontology
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they indicate incomplete coordinates.
Sometimes they indicate genuine curvature pathology. Sometimes they
arise from idealizations.
A coordinate singularity and a curvature singularity are not the same
thing.
Your phrase:
"various accounts of BH coordinates"
is especially revealing because you haven't distinguished coordinate
artifacts from invariant physical singularities.
You assume all these historical problems share one cause
That is the gigantic hidden premise.
Why should:
classical vortex theories,
electromagnetic self-energy,
quantum renormalization,
black-hole coordinates,
torsion,
hypergeometric singularities,
and cosmological constants
be manifestations of a single underlying defect?
You haven't demonstrated that.
You're merely asserting thematic resemblance.
A physicist reading this would immediately ask the questions your prose
avoids.
"What is the model?"
You don't have one.
"What does it predict?"
Nothing stated.
"What does it predict differently from GR + QFT?"
Nothing.
"What is the action?"
Absent.
"What is quantized?"
Undefined.
"What is the observable?"
Undefined.
"What symmetry does it possess?"
Undefined.
"Does it recover special relativity?"
Not demonstrated.
"Does it recover general relativity?"
Not demonstrated.
"Does it reproduce the Standard Model?"
Not demonstrated.
"What experiment falsifies it?"
Not stated.
And this creates the worst possible incentive structure: every apparent
contradiction can be absorbed by adding another metaphor.
That's how unfalsifiable frameworks are born.
If someone can respond to every objection with another paragraph about
vortices, torsion, singularities, and integral equations, you've built
rhetoric that protects itself from failure rather than a theory that
risks being wrong.
Your final appeal to integral equations is particularly weak:
"Integral equations including singular integrals: ‘For good measure,
....’"
The Duhamel principle is not a magical mechanism for "integrating things
together."
It provides representations for solutions of certain evolution equations
using the associated homogeneous propagator and forcing term.
Schematically:
That's useful.
It does not imply that differential equations are fundamentally
inadequate.
Nor does converting a differential formulation into an integral
formulation magically cure:
singularities,
ultraviolet divergences,
nonrenormalizability,
quantum-gravitational degrees of freedom,
loss of differentiability,
or inconsistent dynamics.
Likewise, singular integral equations have their own technical
nightmares: principal values, distributional interpretations, kernels,
regularization, existence, uniqueness, boundedness, and so forth.
You haven't escaped the mathematics.
You've changed the furniture.
The relativity section is worse
You write:
"motion is relative in the formalism, which also has that
light-speed is a constant…"
This reduces special relativity to a slogan.
Special relativity is not merely:
motion is relative + light has constant speed.
It rests on a precise spacetime structure, Lorentz symmetry, inertial
frames, invariant intervals, simultaneity structure, and the
transformation laws connecting observers.
Then you say:
"that account of relativity theory is just the same as the old one
with adding mass/energy equivalency and the mass-less character of
light"
No.
That's historically and conceptually wrong.
Mass–energy equivalence is not the defining addition that transforms
pre-relativistic mechanics into special relativity. Nor is "the
mass-less character of light" the conceptual foundation of the theory.
You are compressing an entire geometric reformulation of spacetime into
a couple of slogans.
That's not simplification.
That's destruction of the essential content.
"L-principle" is another red flag
You introduce:
"that's called the ‘L-principle’"
But you don't define it mathematically.
Is a Lagrangian?
Lorentz invariance?
Light cone?
A proposed principle?
A named principle from an existing literature?
Your reader has no way to know.
Inventing terminology without defining it is how private vocabulary
masquerades as scientific terminology.
1. Burn the entire opening paragraph
Not edited.
Rebuilt.
It currently attempts to connect too many subjects before establishing
even one.
Start with one proposition.
For example:
Hypothesis: Classical differentiable geometry is not fundamental at
the Planck scale.
Then define exactly what replaces it.
2. Separate history from mathematics
Descartes, Kelvin, Born, Einstein, Feynman, Galileo, Leibniz, Duhamel,
etc. belong in a historical motivation section after the mathematical
problem is defined.
Names are not premises.
3. Define the geometry
If your central thesis concerns the disappearance of straight
lines/right angles, you need to specify the replacement structure.
For example, if you're proposing a noncommutative geometry, write down
the algebra.
If you're proposing torsion, define:
If you're proposing curvature, define the relevant curvature tensor.
If you're proposing a discrete geometry, define the discrete variables.
Otherwise you have no object of study.
4. Establish the limiting behavior
A quantum-gravity proposal has an enormous burden:
You need to demonstrate which known theory emerges and under what
conditions.
If the proposal cannot reproduce established physics, it isn't
revolutionary.
It's wrong.
5. Produce an actual prediction
You need something like:
or a modified dispersion relation, correction to black-hole
thermodynamics, deviation from Lorentz symmetry, altered propagator,
modified gravitational coupling, etc.
Then someone can ask whether the effect is experimentally accessible.
Without a prediction, you're not doing physics.
You're writing metaphysics with equations sprinkled on top.
Three fragments are worth salvaging:
The Planck-scale breakdown of classical geometric intuition.
Legitimate research territory.
The distinction between metric, norm, and broader geometric
structures.
Potentially useful if you turn it into precise mathematics.
The suspicion that successful existing theories can still be
incomplete.
Completely legitimate—but trivial unless converted into a specific
replacement framework.
Everything else currently functions as supporting debris.
The hypergeometric singularity statement is mathematically correct but
presently irrelevant. Duhamel's principle is mathematically legitimate
but presently irrelevant. Historical references are mostly decorative.
"L-principle" is undefined. "Spiral-singular origin" is undefined.
"Continuous quantum theory" is undefined.
Right now this isn't a theory waiting to be proven; it's a vocabulary
avalanche waiting to be forced into definitions, equations, limits, and
falsifiable predictions—and until that happens, calling it a theory is
giving it far more credit than the mathematics has earned.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web