discountbrains

Please, please give a cogent refutation of what I claim. None of you have given any solid proof that what I claimed is wrong. You realize all you're using is conventional wisdom don't you.As for writing a paper, I recently came up with something in math that I think is pretty profound, but the proof is only about 4 lines. I wrote The Journal of the American Mathematical Society to see if I could get an opinion and got back it wasn't in the format nor met the criteria of an article. I knew that. I don't know where to go with my stuff.

Yes, you certainly know which is likely. BUT, your argument in no way proves me wrong. If I'm wrong give me a proof! This reminds me of a job I once had. I told the boss a guage we were using was damaged and he jumped on me for not telling him sooner. Do you get the point, In fact, I was precisely telling him at this time the guage was damaged.

I've never quite accepted the Axiom of Choice and have heard some others don't either. This is how I now think of it: For example, suppose you were going to play in a doubles tennis match and you were given a group of 50 people to choose your one partner from. You may have no idea of how good any of them are so you choose one at random. You are given the right or privilege by the Axiom of choice , but it doesn't tell you which one to choose. It's possible you may know which ones are the best yourself, but the Axiom of choice doesn't pick one for you. This could be repeated multiple times; you could be presented with many different sizes of groups or sets. The Axiom of choice only gives you permission to choose one.

You have hit upon a paradox of this whole theory. No discontinuity needs to be considered. I hope my post on this made it on this board and wasn't deleted. You see u are not allowed to go against this Einstein religion. Distances that are immutable somehow magically change when u start calculating them using relativity. This is a fantacy. Yet SR predicts some things quite well like E=mc²

Consider 2 spaceships going from planet A to planet B on the same path and with the same velocity very close to c. One is ahead of the other by several millions miles and is just a few 100 miles from planet B and the trailing one is a few 100 miles from planet A. Since they are going close to c an observer at rest watching them off to the side sees their separation actually appears very small. He adds their separation to the distances of each to the respective A and B planets and calculates the distance between the two planets and finds it now much smaller than he hnows it should be. How can this be? This same reasoning can be applied to Einstein's explanation of the electro-magnetic effect and it can be concluded his theory does not explain this either. Once I posted the spaceships example before on one of these sites and was told "This site is physics not math". I'm puzzled why I didn't counter this remark with, "This is science not religion". I will give details why relativity doesn't explain the magnetic effect of an electrical current through a wire later-its not complicated.