On Jan 3, 6:07*pm, 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.”
KW, you can never teach the willfully blind to see a rainbow.
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...
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
Only an idiot would write what Paul did.
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)
That's my favorite equation of all time! Just love it.
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
It is time for paul to join another paul aka sylvia, absolute dick,
little bitch, etc. better known as PD for another divine vision to
resolve the paradox --- projection of proper time. *Tom used to
believe in that crap, but he is now back to the first divine vision
promoted by promoted by Olivia Newton-John’s grandfather, Max Born.
shrug
Nice connection! ONJ and Born. "Have you never been mellow, have you
never tried, to find the comfort, from inside..." try Dan Singh with
QT's VV of Travolta fame. Sorry, I had one of those greasy free
thought moments.
Actually KW, I was searching for your recent Zardoz reference, and
instead, found beautiful Born Olivia. Still perusing threads...
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.
“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. *Why did you
replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of
2008? *The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor.
No wonder his is still too sore. *Ahahahaha...
[Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped]
ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS
KW... never be intimidated by they-the-them ganging up on you.
Enjo(y)... Cheers!
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.
http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
"If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive
you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!"