|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Abuse of Scientific Methods
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Abuse of Scientific Methods
On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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. 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Abuse of Scientific Methods
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Abuse of Scientific Methods
On 6/5/2013 1:22 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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 bull**** again. nothing in your post nor in the wikipedia article you reference provided any -- repeat, any -- demonstration that the other transforms are consistent with 'every single experimental result that validates sr'. so far, you are working hard to be known forever as the man who makes ridiculous statements without backup. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Abuse of Scientific Methods
On Jun 5, 11:37 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**** again. nothing in your post nor in the wikipedia article you reference provided any -- repeat, any -- demonstration that the other transforms are consistent with 'every single experimental result that validates sr'. So, basically if it can be shown that all experimental verifications to SR also verify the antitheses to SR, the self-styled physicists will have to accept that SR has never been verified through experimentations. Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? shrug so far, you are working hard to be known forever as the man who makes ridiculous statements without backup. If you want to deny the fact that so far any experiments have not uniquely verified SR, that is entirely your problem and yours only. Tom already knows that given today’s technology, SR and its antitheses are indistinguishable despite drastically different in mathematics. shrug At this stage, Koobee Wublee rests. PD aka absolutely imbecile is indeed an absolute idiot. :-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Abuse of Scientific Methods
On 6/5/2013 3:34 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:37 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**** again. nothing in your post nor in the wikipedia article you reference provided any -- repeat, any -- demonstration that the other transforms are consistent with 'every single experimental result that validates sr'. So, basically if it can be shown that all experimental verifications to SR also verify the antitheses to SR, the self-styled physicists will have to accept that SR has never been verified through experimentations. it will show that sr has not been singled out as a superior model over the other ones, yes. Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? shrug not likely. you haven't demonstrated anything yet. so far, you are working hard to be known forever as the man who makes ridiculous statements without backup. If you want to deny the fact that so far any experiments have not uniquely verified SR, that is entirely your problem and yours only. aha, so you don't have any backup to your ridiculous statement. not a surprise. Tom already knows that given today’s technology, SR and its antitheses are indistinguishable despite drastically different in mathematics. shrug bull****. and you are now forever known as the guy who makes ridiculous statements without backup. At this stage, Koobee Wublee rests. PD aka absolutely imbecile is indeed an absolute idiot. :-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Abuse of Scientific Methods
In article , Koobee Wublee wrote:
Does anyone object to Richard Feynman=92s definition of scientific method? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEYPapE-3FRw Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and discussion, but please don=92t let that intimidate you. If you think Feynman is wrong on the process leading to scientific methods, please do explain how. It's well defined in many places. No further definitions are necessary, and I sure don't need to watch a video on the subject. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Abuse of Scientific Methods
Am 05.06.2013 18:25, schrieb Koobee Wublee:
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/File:M...ztransform.svg This a Minkowski diagramm of a light cone. If c is constant, than the term 'space' must refer to the light-cone and not to what is called x. We see things in our own past light cone and cannot see into the direction called x. Since with a Lorentz transform the 'real' direction of x changes, that direction is not 'real' neither. So 'space' is just an observation and that is relative. Movement does not make trains shorter or seconds longer, but enable a view into a different world. The flaw of SRT is, that it depends on a preferred 'inertial' FoR. This does not exist and we have acceleration as mayor influence on time, not movement. This is proven by experiments like that at the Harvard towers. Or the so called Pioneer anomaly could be understood that way. The 'twin paradox' could be solved that way, too, since the effect of 'time-dilation' is compensated by 'time-contraction' then (because of deceleration). Next flaw is the speedlimit of c, since the angle 45° (in the diagram) refers to c and the direction x to infinite velocity. We cannot see infinite velocity (because light moves with c). But this does not mean, such relation do not exist. We have in fact a spectrum of velocity, from zero to infinity. Zero is the feature of a mass and infinity the feature of a static field. Both combined make an atom. Since the direction x is relative, this would mean, that matter is 'relative', too. TH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |