Logical proof of ZPT invalidity [Archive]

View Full Version : Logical proof of ZPT invalidity

Reality Check

26th October 2008, 03:44 AM

There is a thread on the forum called Logical proof of SRT invalidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127034) started by ozziemate.
IMHO: There are a few things wrong with what he has presented (400 posts and no actual logical proof presented yet!). But I will present one for his education by applying his logic to his pet idea (zero point theory).

Note that this is an idea of his only. There is no mathematics or physics involved in it. Just a web site with pseudo-science language and pretty pictures. The basic premises that he has presented here are:

Light does not travel (distance is zero for light).
All detectors act exactly as if light travels and report the distance to the source of the light to observers.
We exist in a 4-dimensional spacetime but light exists a zero-dimensional spacetime and gravity in a 3-dimensional spacetime.
So let us apply ozziemate's logic to zero point theory.

Assume that light travels (i.e. distance is not zero for light).
A theory that states that light does not travel is thus invalid.
Zero point theory assumes that light does not travel.
Thus zero point theory is invalid. :jaw-dropp

Reality Check

27th October 2008, 04:33 AM

ozziemate

27th October 2008, 04:35 AM

Wow...Just past 500 posts in Logical proof of SRT invalidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127034) and still no logical proof is presented!

uhm.... but wait there's more....
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4156501#post4156501

sorry RealityCheck but your vendetta is about to finish....:)

Reality Check

27th October 2008, 04:39 AM

uhm.... but wait there's more....
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4156501#post4156501

sorry RealityCheck but your vendetta is about to finish....:)
So you either

admit that zero point theory is invaild?
admit your logic is wrong and the Logical proof of SRT invalidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127034) is resloved in favour of SRT?
Which is it?

ozziemate

27th October 2008, 05:06 AM

So you either

admit that zero point theory is invaild?
admit your logic is wrong and the Logical proof of SRT invalidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127034) is resloved in favour of SRT?
Which is it?
Firstly as you well know Zero point theory has yet to be created.
Secondly How can I admit my logic for ZPT is wrong when it hasn't been formalised into a hypothesis let alone a theory yet.
Thirdly, The logical proof of SRT invalidity is about to be presented after an exhausting 500 pages of mostly flaming and harrassment by yourself and others.
Fourthly, Instead of dealing with the issues at hand you have constantly been attempting to derail proper discussion due to your absolute blind faith in a theory that is under question.
Sorry Reality Check for threatening your comfort zone so much but hey that's life....

Dancing David

27th October 2008, 05:11 AM

uhm.... but wait there's more....
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4156501#post4156501

sorry RealityCheck but your vendetta is about to finish....:)

A vendetta, what a chump you are!

RC has not gone on a vendetta against you, just further proof that you are arrogant, clueless and a poseur.

delusions of grandeur.

You are just like some religous fanatic who can't take a critique so you make it personal.

Looser! i will keep reading but you are hopeless.

RC has been very polite to you by the standards of the forum.

Reality Check

27th October 2008, 06:11 AM

Firstly as you well know Zero point theory has yet to be created.
Secondly How can I admit my logic for ZPT is wrong when it hasn't been formalised into a hypothesis let alone a theory yet.
Thirdly, The logical proof of SRT invalidity is about to be presented after an exhausting 500 pages of mostly flaming and harrassment by yourself and others.
Fourthly, Instead of dealing with the issues at hand you have constantly been attempting to derail proper discussion due to your absolute blind faith in a theory that is under question.
Sorry Reality Check for threatening your comfort zone so much but hey that's life....
Are you saying that zero point energy does not include that light does not travel (distance is zero for light)?

What are its premises or posulates then?

ETA:
Forget about it. If it does not exist at all then you probably do not have premises or posulates and so this thread is even sillier than your distance is zero for light thread (aka Proof of the photon that is unambiguous?)

GreyICE

27th October 2008, 06:42 AM

Why can't I help but feel the OP is a PM to a few people that somehow got posted on the forums?

Reality Check

27th October 2008, 07:06 AM

Why can't I help but feel the OP is a PM to a few people that somehow got posted on the forums?
Actually I suggested that ozziemates logic was wrong in the SRT thread and he suggested that it was not for that thread so I started a new one.