View Single Post
  #1  
Old June 5th 13, 05:25 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.chem
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods

Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of scientific
method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and
discussion, but please don’t let that intimidate you. If you think
Feynman is wrong on the process leading to scientific methods, please
do explain how. If not, please continue. shrug

Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds all
experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat is
exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. shrug

Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and urge
everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not done. If
so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s transform,
and infinite others do also satisfy in every single experimental
result that validates SR including satisfying the null results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled physicists have
studied beyond the textbooks, they would have realized these
transformations other than SR say the absolute frame of reference must
exist which make them the antitheses to SR. shrug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ransformations

IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES. Thus,
bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its antitheses is
just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY, SR HAS NEVER BEEN
VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. shrug

Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very afraid of
going there. shrug

Koobee Wublee tried to publish this post at sci.physics.research but
encountered rejection with explanation below. shrug

- - -

Your posting is inappropriate for sci.physics.research since it
contradicts established empirical facts concerning the validity of the
special theory of relativity.

With kindest regards,
Hendrik van Hees.
sci.physics.research co-moderator
Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies
D-60438 Frankfurt am Main
http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/

- - -

Basically, the post will destroy the religion of SR. shrug

Is there any doubt that the Orwellian philosophy is well indoctrinated
among the self-styled physicists?

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONSPIRACY IS PEER
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

shrug