![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Construction methods | Brian Gaff | Space Station | 1 | April 5th 13 12:30 AM |
multiscale methods | Statistica Sinica | UK Astronomy | 0 | February 11th 08 12:09 PM |
More Scientific Predictions From Profound Science Officers Becoming Scientific Based Real World Applied Extensions | Double-A[_1_] | Misc | 0 | May 23rd 07 06:49 PM |
More Scientific Predictions From Profound Science Officers Becoming Scientific Based Real World Applied Extensions | Double-A[_1_] | Misc | 0 | May 23rd 07 06:48 PM |
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 11 | February 5th 07 08:13 PM |