View Single Post
  #13  
Old January 4th 13, 08:13 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On 04.01.2013 00:07, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 3, 2:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:


Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.


Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because
it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug


Antitheses to SR a


** Voigt transformation
** Larmor’s transformation
** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz


Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null
results of the MMX and more. shrug


paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox.


My mathematic trick: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html


Koobee Wublee knows the little professor paul andersen just would not
resist to get his butt kicked again. Let’s spank more of the little
professor’s ass. Ahahaha...

Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific
method.


Quite.
It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific
method is way beyond my mental abilities.


Only to the little professor. Please allow Koobee Wublee to repeat
the essence of scientific method. There is nothing wrong about the
statement below. shrug

“Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, common sense says one must find experiments to
validate only one of these hypotheses.”


Quite.
That's the Wubleean version all right. shrug


The exact episode is like the children’s story “Blind men and the
elephant”. Apparently, paul is too busy chasing chickens near the
Arctic Circle that he lost the meaning of what scientific method is.
Gee! You can even take hints from children’s story books.
Ahahahaha...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant

Please do bookmark this one. So, a few months or years down the road,
we can only again laugh at the little professor from Norway.
Ahahahaha...


Quite.
I am sure people will laugh at me when you present the Wubleean
version of the scientific method. shrug


The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is
an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein
Dingleberry anyway? :-)


Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don’t
you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and
save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it.
Oh, still sore, eh? :-) Looking for every possible opportunities to
get back at Koobee Wublee? shrug


Your argument are as lethal as always.


You bet. shrug

For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf
thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero
at the instant when they were co-located:
http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8


On page 3 right below Figure 2, you have

delta = (delta_A – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2)

Where

** B^2 = v^2 / c^2

It can easily be

Delta_A = (delta – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2)


I will take you word for that it easily can be that
if you don't know what you are doing. shrug

[snip irrelevant derivation with the purpose to
divert the attention from that fact that Wublee
insisted that to set three co-located clocks to zero
is a violation of relativity.]


And you made me aware that I in this paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
had confused parallax and aberration:
http://tinyurl.com/nje25b


The great post of Yours Truly happened in 2008. The following excerpt
still applies today.


Quite.
The arguments are as lethal as they were in 2008:

“Please pick up all your **** from this thread and apologize to
Darwin,
myself yours truly, and many others. I will still give you a kick in
the butt for your barbaric attitude.

“In the meantime, it is crucial to apply the principle of relativity
for ANY LOW SPEED applications. This includes stellar aberration. It
is merely a part of applications on Doppler effect. shrug

“Kowtow! Now, get lost, and stop whining.”

That original pdf paper in 2008 had the gross error of computing
aberration without using the principle of relativity.


Compute aberration without the principle of relativity? :-)
Wublee .... :-)

Why did you
replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of
2008?


The only difference between the 2008 version and the 2010 version
is that the former was written in Word, while the latter is
written in LaTex. The content is exactly the same, the changes
are purely cosmetic.

The original 2008 version:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Ste...ration_old.pdf
The 2010 version:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

In both versions I have calculated stellar aberration both
according to the Lorentz transform and according to
the Galilean transform. The difference is unmeasurable.

Because: tan(v/c) ~= sin(v/c) ~= v/c when v/c 1

The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor.
No wonder his is still too sore. Ahahahaha...


I see that you are desperate to divert the attention
from your blunder, which was that you claimed that I
had confused stellar aberration and parallax.

You don't like to be reminded of your blunders, do you? :-)


[Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped]


You mean this?

And you also proved that even if it is experimentally
proven that the velocity of the star contributes nothing
to stellar aberration, the velocity of the star is
very much important in determining this aberration.
http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz


ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS


You really don't like to be reminded of your blunders, do you? :-)
Because it is a blunder to insist that the velocity of
the star must contribute to stellar aberration when it
is experimentally proven that it doesn't.
Isn't it?

BTW, why do you think that your whining when I remind
you of your blunders is kicking my ass? :-)

Now I will get lost.
I have had my fun for now, but I am sure you yet again
will give me an opportunity to remind you of your blunders.

Until then, have nice days!

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Ads