One camment.
==============.
SR is wrong theory. it is deductively inconsistent and so it is
empirically inconsistent.
Prof. Grynmore of CMU wrongly claimed that as Minkowsi metric theory
is consistent, SR is consistent. The truth is that Minkowski's
theory has nothing to do with Einstein's SR. Einstein was correct
when he protested that Minkowski made it impossible to understand
physics. The proper interval theorem of SR which maps Einsteinian SR
inot Minkowski's theory is not one to one mapping. This means, we
cannot translate the prediction of Minkowski's theory to Einstein's
original SR.
The cruel fact is that Einstein's theory is inconsistent and
Minkowski's theory has nothing to do with physics. The latter is a
stupid mathematics too. All mathematicians with decent training knows
that functions and graph of functions are exactly the same. Minkowski
represented functions which formulate motions as graphs. This is what
4D is all about. It is a mathematical trivia and it is amusing to see
that relativists cult takes this as their big pride. Trivial
mathematics for trivial minds. It is totally stupid to assume that
one can get something revolutionary from this equivalent
representation of functions. This stupidity crystalises later when GR
was developed as maniforld of 4D Riemann space. They thought that
they made motion stationary by defining it as geodesic in the
maniforld over 4D Riemann space. These stupid people did not
understand a simple fact that when masses move, the geometric
distribution of masses change and thus geodesic cannot really
represent motion. Motion is dynamic even in the 4D. Then what is the
point of making origianl 3D space 1D time into 4D? it appears all
intellectual masterbation of relativists cult that they took 4D
nonsense so seriously. Never mind, think about economists for
example, they are working on many hundreds dimensional vector spaces.
So do engineers. Mathematics for physics is most simple minded.
Dr. Kanda
