|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
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.” 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 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) 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 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is or is not a paradox? | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 9 | January 2nd 13 05:41 PM |
The Cow Paradox | Keith Wood | SETI | 5 | December 30th 06 01:10 AM |
what if paradox | kjakja | Misc | 130 | December 12th 04 05:09 AM |