On Jun 5, 10:21 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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

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

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

bull****. back up your ridiculous statement.
if you don't, then you will be known forever as the man who makes
ridiculous statements without backup.

Already backed up in the section where PD aka absolutely imbecile had
snipped. You need to study for a change instead of ranting about
garbage. shrug