View Single Post
  #17  
Old January 6th 13, 09:33 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 06.01.2013 00:30, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 04.01.2013 22:23, Koobee Wublee wrote:


It looks like paul is really haunted by his past blunders. OK, Koobee
Wublee will go easy on paul this time since Koobee Wublee still wants
paul to come back every now and then to get his butt spanked. shrug


I think I may be a masochist.
I enjoy your spanking, it makes me laugh.
So maybe I am only ticklish?

Prior to that discussion in 2008, paul had claimed aberration has
nothing to do with the velocity of the source.


I have known for a very long time before 2008 that the speed
of the star contributes nothing to _stellar_ aberration.

Here is a posting from 2003:http://tinyurl.com/aktft66

Read the following carefully:
Stellar aberration is the change in the angle of the beam
OBSERVED IN THE EARTH FRAME at different times of the year.
We NEVER observe the angle of the beam in the stellar frame.
It matters zip what this might be. When the star changes its
velocity (being a binary), the angle of the beam in the stellar frame
will change. But we never observe this angle so it doesn't matter.
The only thing that matters is the difference in the velocity
of the Earth frame and the resulting change of the direction in
the Earth frame.
That's why a star at the ecliptic pole is seen to move around
a circle with diameter (60km/s)/c radians.


The paper that started the discussion in 2008:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Ste...ration_old.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Then, Koobee Wublee
came down on him hard. Spanked him.


See Wublee spank me in 2008: http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz

Koobee Wublee:
Allow me to claim that again. The stellar aberration is an
application of the Galilean transform for low speeds. Since the
Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity,
the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
this aberration. shrug


Paul B.Andersen:
It's more fun every time you repeat your blunder. :-)
Now it is breathtaking.

And I love to rub it in:
Ever since Bradley in 1725 for the fist time measured the stellar
aberration, it has been experimentally verified over and over again
that stellar aberrations depends _only_ on the change of the velocity
of the Earth, and of the speed of light. The velocity of the star
contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
The fact that the stellar aberration is the same for both
components of a binary makes it blazingly clear that the velocities
of the components are irrelevant.

Knowing this (you know it now), it is pretty stupid to claim:
"the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
this aberration."


I still love to rub it in! :-)

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


See Wublee confuse parallax and aberration: http://tinyurl.com/nje25b

Paul B. Andersen wrote
| Koobee Wublee thinks the following paper shows that I am
| "utterly confused between aberration and parallax".
| http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Koobee Wublee responded:
| That is very correct. shrug


Since you think the aberration in my paper is parallax,
you have confused the two. Your blunder Koobee!


See Koobee spank my butt: :-)

Once again, the little professor thinks aberration has nothing to do
with the velocity of the source that violates the principle of
relativity. If paul were to believe in the Aether which what paul is
claiming can be true since there is a medium that defines the
direction of the signal after it is emitted. This is another fine
example in paul’s blunder in using what can easily be explained by a
hypothesis that he has previously rejected. Instead, paul would
conjure up all sorts of nonsense to justify his own believe on more
garbage. It does not matter if all these believes contradict one
another. Way to go, paul. What a blunder! shrug


Why did the word "pathetic" enter my mind? :-)

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.


Again, Wublee? :-)

See Koobee coming hard down on the small professor:


http://tinyurl.com/bdzm4k

It is completely beside the point to repeat over and over
that the small offset in the frequencies sent from
the satellite have no consequences whatsoever,
because nobody ever said they had.

Listen autistic idiot:
The reason, and only reason, why the frequency standard is corrected
for relativistic effects is to make the SV clock run synchronously
with the ground clocks.

That the carrier and shipping frequencies also are adjusted is
just a side effect because all frequencies are derived from
the same frequency standard.

Read this:
-----------------------------------------------------------
The important point is that if the SV clock rates were not corrected,
they would drift out of sync from GPS time after few minutes.
The clocks have to be in sync within 100 ns for the GPS to work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The carrier frequencies, like all other frequencies,
are at the receiver Doppler shifted between +/- 3E-7.
The satellites are moving!

The Doppler shift may be almost a thousand times more than
the minute GR-correction, so of bloody course the -4.4647E-10
offset is of no consequence whatsoever for the receiver!
AND NOBODY EVER SAID OTHERWISE!


And again: !! :-)

paul has to mention the carrier frequencies because he knew earlier
Koobee Wublee had corrected on his blunder. Prior to that discussion,
paul charged in one day and had claimed the synchronization was
necessary because of the Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies.
shrug


I will give you this, Koobee:
"paul charged in one day and had claimed the synchronization was
necessary because of the Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies."
is at least a new version of your false claim. :-)

You are indeed creative when it comes to invent what
I have claimed in the past!

Of course you don't have to find the postings where I did all
those blunders, everybody will take your word for what
I have said in the past. :-)

This was written in August 2007, when you already had repeated
your stupid claim a number of times.
Since then, you have repeated it again and again.


So it was about time that you invented a new version! :-)

shaking head paul still thinks synchronization of the clocks is
critical. As Koobee Wublee has stated many times over, the clock does
not matter. What is important is that all satellites need to agree on
the chronological time (accumulated by clocks). If clocks are not in
sync, it is no big deal since Simple software such as IEEE1588 type
algorithm can correct them. After all, paul is an electrical engineer
who does not understand what has to be synchronized instead of jumping
on wagons with self-style physicists beating the drums of blunders.
shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...47920d8e567050


Thank you for saving me for the work of digging up postings
which demonstrate your ignorance of how the GPS works. :-)

(Not that they are hard to find. They are rather numerous.)


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


So I have rewritten the Google archive? :-)

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.


And the opportunity came quickly! :-)

You have made many blunders, Koobee, so if you want me
to remind you of more of them, I will be at your service.


paul, you forgot about the recent blunder of not knowing what
scientific method is. Could Koobee Wublee remind paul even the sperm
lover refuses to go in bed with him. Ahahahaha...

“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 and only one of the hypotheses. Or else it is
fruitless. This is what scientific method is all about.

“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”


And with that beautiful demonstration of the Wubleean
version of the scientific method, I stand corrected.

You don't have to find an experiment which falsifies SR
to falsify SR. SR is falsified by the fact that the MMX
confirms other theories like the ballistic light theory.

Oh, on the blunder in the twins’ paradox, we will discuss further it
in the other thread. Please do expect more spanking from Koobee
Wublee. rolling up sleeves


Quite.
You are free to spank me as much as you want.
It hurts nothing but possibly my stomach muscles.

--
Paul, with a sore stomach from Wublee's butt spanking

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