On Jan 4, 12:13 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 04.01.2013 00:07, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.
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
Quite.
That's the Wubleean version all right. shrug
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
paul is lost as usual. 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)
The bottom line is the equation describing the segment of
Minkowski spacetime using your labeling system:
** c^2 dt_AC^2 – ds_AC^2 = c^2 dt_BC^2 – ds_BC^2
Where
** ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
The equation can be written as follows.
** dt_AC^2 (1 – B_AC^2) = dt_BC^2 (1 – B_BC^2)
Where
** B_AC c = Speed of C as observed by A
** B_BC c = Speed of C as observed by B
From A’s point of view trying to compare the rate of time
flows with C, B and C are the same. Thus, the equation above
simplifies into the following.
** dt_AB^2 (1 – B_AB^2) = dt_BB^2 (1 – B_BB^2) = dt_BB^2
Where
** B_AB c = Speed of B as observed by A
** B_BB c = 0
On the other hand, from C’s pint of view observing A, B and
A are the same. Thus, the spacetime equation has to be
interpreted differently as the following.
** dt_AA^2 (1 – B_AA^2) = dt_BA^2 (1 – B_BA^2) = dt_AA^2
Where
** B_AA c = 0
** B_BA c = Speed of A as observed by B
The only time when there is no paradox is when
(B_AB = B_BA = 0). This is what the Lorentz symmetry is all
about such that there is no special treatment on the one that
is moving, and the little professor from Norway fails miserably
on this one. SPANK SPANK SPANK
I will take you word for that it easily can be that
if you don't know what you are doing. shrug
Koobee Wublee can smell paul is attempting to execute another one of
his not so graceful and unsportsmanlike-conduct retreats. From the
very essence of SR, the Minkowski spacetime has the twins’ paradox
written all over it. Denying no paradox would falsify spacetime, and
there is no GR. shrug
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.
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.
Prior to that discussion in 2008, paul had claimed aberration has
nothing to do with the velocity of the source. Then, Koobee Wublee
came down on him hard. Spanked him. The small professor then accused
Koobee Wublee of confusion in parallax and aberration and wrote these
phantom papers as distraction from his blunder. What a small
professor he is indeed. shrug
Of course, this is not the only time. Before that, paul also claimed
the correction to the GPS clock being necessary because the carrier
frequencies of the downlinks will be affected. Koobee Wublee also
came down hard on the small professor. Same thing happened. paul
skillfully deleted his posts and corrected his blunders by re-engaging
the discussions a few years later with a different story. shrug
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.
paul means that he is going to busily think about a way to cover his
blunders again. shrug
Until then, have nice days!
Koobee Wublee shall have nice days, thank you. Hope you have sweet
dreams about chasing chickens instead of nightmares about the reality
of the fatal contradictions manifested in the twins’ paradox. shrug