Contradictory Premises at High Speeds

On Aug 14, 8:50 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/13/12 8/13/12 - 1:58 PM, Pete Weber wrote:

Simply, there is no accurate empirical measurement data to support
relativity,

This is simply not true. Your ignorance is showing. See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Pete Weber is actually very correct. These so-called experimental
verifications you have tossed around to justify your belief in your
very foul religion actually also validate the hypothesis that the
Aether must exist. See Lorentz’s work on these infinite numbers of
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX and Tom Roberts’
compilation of experimental results. shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ransformations

the constancy of speed of light is questionable,

Not so. See references above.

Tom, for the n’th time, you have been told that these experimental
results don’t mean anything since they also validate the arch-thesis
of Special Relativity. Any sane scientists would look for more
professionally executed experiments that justify for the principle of
relativity. shrug

It is utterly silly to declare one hypothesis valid through these
experimental results that also validate its antitheses. shrug

Also, the constancy in the speed of light has led to acceptance of a
blatant paradox as a real-life event. The self-styled physicists have
dug themselves in an ever deeper hole. The truth will eventually come
out. It is rather stupid to hang on to myths just because you were
spoon-fed with these silly myths. shrug

no data for length contraction

This happens to be true, if one only accepts direct measurements. But there are
several indirect indications that "length contraction" must occur. See
references above.

Length contraction is a dynamic effect while time dilation is an
accumulative effect. Time must be absolute while space must be
relative. Any hypotheses stupid enough to challenge what is stated in
the first and the second sentences of this paragraph belong in the
occult world. shrug

and very little if any for time dilation

Again your ignorance is showing. There is LOTS of experimental evidence for
"time dilation". See references above.

All these infinite transformations that satisfy the null results of
the MMX and your compilation of experimental results also exhibit time
dilation. So, discovery of time dilation certainly does not validate
Special Relativity. shrug

Paradoxes - a lot of them,

Yes, in the sense of "seemingly contradictory statements that upon analysis are
found to be true". These are TEACHING EXAMPLES, not inconsistencies in the theory.

Acceptance of paradoxes as reality is not a representative of teaching
examples but reflections in the ignorance among the shamans who have
infiltrated the academics in the past 100 years. Stop making up
excuses for your ignorance. shrug

I would mention Black Holes, never observed.

First, black holes are not part of SR (which is the subject here). Second, there
are LOTS of observations and measurements of black hole candidates in the
astronomy literature, and nobody has presented a convincing argument that they
are anything else. Black holes, by their very nature, cannot be directly
observed, but the indirect observations are legion, and convincing to
essentially all astronomers and physicists.

Once again, Tom is jumping into conclusions. All these extreme
observations around the hypothetical black holes can very well agree
with models that exhibit an exponential function in the gravitational
potential, e^(-U), instead of 1/(1-2 U), Schwarzschild solution.
Among these infinite solutions to the field equations, it should not
be too difficult to find one that is exponential in the metric element
associated with time. shrug

You need to improve your knowledge of the subject, and that can only be done by
STUDY.

So, when does Tom start to study instead of chanting the occults? The
following sums up what Tom is leading to. shrug

** 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
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

shrug

Le 15/08/12 08:53, Koobee Wublee a écrit :
these experimental
results don’t mean anything since they also validate the arch-thesis
of Special Relativity.

GREAT!

So, anything that doesn't fit your preconceived views, any EXPERIMENTS
that prove you wrong must be discarded.


Any sane scientists would look for more
professionally executed experiments that justify for the principle of
relativity. shrug

WHAT have you against those experiments?

The setup?

The error analysis?

WHAT?

"jacob navia" wrote in message

Le 15/08/12 08:53, Koobee Wublee a écrit :
these experimental
results don’t mean anything since they also validate the arch-thesis
of Special Relativity.

GREAT!

So, anything that doesn't fit your preconceived views, any EXPERIMENTS
that prove you wrong must be discarded.


Any sane scientists would look for more
professionally executed experiments that justify for the principle of
relativity. shrug

WHAT have you against those experiments?

The setup?

The error analysis?

WHAT?

The fact that they clash with his naive intuition.
He's an engineer, you see.

If it is allergic to relativity and if it can more or less formulate
a proper sentence, then it is a safe bet that it is an engineer.

Dirk Vdm

KW, that was a great post of yours. It stunned Roberts
into silence and made other Einstein Dingleberries suck
up to Albert's sphincter even closer, especially because
of what you say in your **-summation below, which is
the heuristic equivalent of what Einstein himself said from
1950 on, after he, Albert, became a relativity-DENIER!

Take care, KW. Good job!... and thanks for the laughs.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
_______________

"Koobee Wublee" wrote
in message
...
On Aug 14, 8:50 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/13/12 8/13/12 - 1:58 PM, Pete Weber wrote:

Simply, there is no accurate empirical measurement data to support
relativity,

This is simply not true. Your ignorance is showing. See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

KW wrote:
Pete Weber is actually very correct. These so-called experimental
verifications you have tossed around to justify your belief in your
very foul religion actually also validate the hypothesis that the
Aether must exist. See Lorentz’s work on these infinite numbers of
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX and Tom Roberts’
compilation of experimental results. shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ransformations

the constancy of speed of light is questionable,

Not so. See references above.


KW wrote:
Tom, for the n’th time, you have been told that these experimental
results don’t mean anything since they also validate the arch-thesis
of Special Relativity. Any sane scientists would look for more
professionally executed experiments that justify for the principle of
relativity. shrug

It is utterly silly to declare one hypothesis valid through these
experimental results that also validate its antitheses. shrug

Also, the constancy in the speed of light has led to acceptance of a
blatant paradox as a real-life event. The self-styled physicists have
dug themselves in an ever deeper hole. The truth will eventually come
out. It is rather stupid to hang on to myths just because you were
spoon-fed with these silly myths. shrug

no data for length contraction

This happens to be true, if one only accepts direct measurements. But
there are
several indirect indications that "length contraction" must occur. See
references above.

Length contraction is a dynamic effect while time dilation is an
accumulative effect. Time must be absolute while space must be
relative. Any hypotheses stupid enough to challenge what is stated in
the first and the second sentences of this paragraph belong in the
occult world. shrug

and very little if any for time dilation

Again your ignorance is showing. There is LOTS of experimental evidence
for
"time dilation". See references above.

All these infinite transformations that satisfy the null results of
the MMX and your compilation of experimental results also exhibit time
dilation. So, discovery of time dilation certainly does not validate
Special Relativity. shrug

Paradoxes - a lot of them,

Yes, in the sense of "seemingly contradictory statements that upon
analysis are
found to be true". These are TEACHING EXAMPLES, not inconsistencies in the
theory.

Acceptance of paradoxes as reality is not a representative of teaching
examples but reflections in the ignorance among the shamans who have
infiltrated the academics in the past 100 years. Stop making up
excuses for your ignorance. shrug

I would mention Black Holes, never observed.

First, black holes are not part of SR (which is the subject here). Second,
there
are LOTS of observations and measurements of black hole candidates in the
astronomy literature, and nobody has presented a convincing argument that
they
are anything else. Black holes, by their very nature, cannot be directly
observed, but the indirect observations are legion, and convincing to
essentially all astronomers and physicists.

Once again, Tom is jumping into conclusions. All these extreme
observations around the hypothetical black holes can very well agree
with models that exhibit an exponential function in the gravitational
potential, e^(-U), instead of 1/(1-2 U), Schwarzschild solution.
Among these infinite solutions to the field equations, it should not
be too difficult to find one that is exponential in the metric element
associated with time. shrug

You need to improve your knowledge of the subject, and that can only be
done by
STUDY.

So, when does Tom start to study instead of chanting the occults? The
following sums up what Tom is leading to. shrug

** 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
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

shrug

On Aug 15, 4:28 am, jacob navia wrote:
Le 15/08/12 08:53, Koobee Wublee a crit :

these experimental
results don t mean anything since they also validate the arch-thesis
of Special Relativity.

GREAT!

So, anything that doesn't fit your preconceived views, any EXPERIMENTS
that prove you wrong must be discarded.

Your ranting is way off the course of this discussion. Try to
understand the point. Experimental results that satisfy one
hypothesis and its antithesis do not support this hypothesis or its
antithesis if the hypothesis cannot coexist with its antithesis. This
should be the very basic discipline in what science is all about.
shrug

What has happened among the self-styled physicists in the past 100
years? They have come up with all these experiments that satisfy the
predictions of SR and the predictions of any Aether model. Any of the
Aether model is an antithesis to SR. SR cannot coexist with any
Aether model in which you must reject one or the other. What Tom does
is to hail SR as a true model of physics for now and reject all the
Aether models. That is just no, no in science. It is not within the
guidelines of scientific methods. It reflects how unprofessional, how
fraudulent, and lack of integrity on the ones who call themselves
scientists without shame. shrug

Any sane scientists would look for more
professionally executed experiments that justify for the principle of
relativity. shrug

WHAT have you against those experiments?

Nothing. shrug

The setup?

No. shrug

The error analysis?

No, again. shrug

WHAT?

Try to understand what science is all about. Experiments are just
tools to verify a hypothesis. Experiments that verify a hypothesis
and its antithesis are useless to decide if the hypothesis is valid or
not. You must design other experiments to distinguish between the
hypothesis and its antithesis. Apparently, they don’t teach this
common sense in the elementary school any more. Scientific methods
worked out in the last few centuries are tossed out of the window, and
the following become the guidelines for science. What a fvcked up
educational system after Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar budging its way into the stage, no? shrug


** 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
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

sick

Koobee Wublee from posted Wed, 15 Aug 2012
09:06:54 -0700 (PDT)



On Aug 15, 4:28 am, jacob navia wrote:
Le 15/08/12 08:53, Koobee Wublee a crit :

these experimental results don t mean anything since they also
validate the arch-thesis of Special Relativity.

GREAT!

So, anything that doesn't fit your preconceived views, any
EXPERIMENTS that prove you wrong must be discarded.

Your ranting is way off the course of this discussion. Try to
understand the point. Experimental results that satisfy one
hypothesis and its antithesis do not support this hypothesis or its
antithesis if the hypothesis cannot coexist with its antithesis. This
should be the very basic discipline in what science is all about.
shrug

Scientists know this for very long, did you know that ?

And that is reason why they do not focus on experiments
that do not fistinguish between competing hypotheses
and they do focus on experiments, whre hypotheses differ.


What has happened among the self-styled physicists in the past 100
years?

They are posting posting in Usenet.
As real scientists do have time for it.

They have come up with all these experiments that satisfy the
predictions of SR and the predictions of any Aether model. Any of the
Aether model is an antithesis to SR. SR cannot coexist with any
Aether model in which you must reject one or the other.

Which of experiments, that reject existence of stationary aether,
partially and fully dragged aether satisy both SR and Aether hypothesis
?


What Tom does
is to hail SR as a true model of physics for now and reject all the
Aether models. That is just no, no in science. It is not within the
guidelines of scientific methods. It reflects how unprofessional, how
fraudulent, and lack of integrity on the ones who call themselves
scientists without shame. shrug

I am afrad it is exctly you, who does things
you acuse Tom from doing...


Any sane scientists would look for more professionally executed
experiments that justify for the principle of relativity. shrug

Try to understand what science is all about.

Try it too.

Experiments are just tools to verify a hypothesis. Experiments that
verify a hypothesis and its antithesis are useless to decide if the
hypothesis is valid or not.

Scientists know this for very long, did you know that ?

You must design other experiments to distinguish between the
hypothesis and its antithesis.

What of many experiments trying to verify SR predictions
was not set by this required way ?

Scientists are not so stupid as you suppose,
only some self-styled scientists in the Usenet,
as you say.



--
Poutnik

On 8/16/12 8/16/12 12:49 AM, Poutnik wrote:
Koobee Wublee from posted Wed, 15 Aug 2012
09:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Experimental results that satisfy one
hypothesis and its antithesis do not support this hypothesis or its
antithesis if the hypothesis cannot coexist with its antithesis. This
should be the very basic discipline in what science is all about.

Scientists know this for very long, did you know that ?

Actually, this is irrelevant -- the "hypothesis" is NOT what is tested, what is
tested is a particular prediction of the ENTIRE THEORY. The dichotomy "ether vs
no ether" exists purely in Koobee's mind, it is not "real", and is not an aspect
of either these theories or of the experiments.

Any electromagnetic experiment that is in agreement with SR will also be in
agreement with LET, because the two theories are experimentally
indistinguishable. That of course implies that it is hopeless to search for an
experiment that distinguishes them.

But LET is hopeless in today's world: it must hypothesize a "weak interaction
ether", a "strong interaction ether", and a "gravitational ether", all with the
same transform properties but VASTLY different interactions. It must also come
to grips with quantum behavior in the interactions with these "ethers".

SR, on the other hand, is at the foundation of all of our current theories of
physics. (This may not hold for a theory of quantum gravity, but that's a very
different discussion.)


Tom Roberts

On Aug 16, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/16/12 8/16/12 12:49 AM, Poutnik wrote:
On 8/15/12, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Experimental results that satisfy one hypothesis and its
antithesis do not support this hypothesis or its antithesis
if the hypothesis cannot coexist with its antithesis. This
should be the very basic discipline in what science is all about.

Scientists know this for very long, did you know that ?

Actually, this is irrelevant -- the "hypothesis" is NOT what is
tested, what is tested is a particular prediction of the ENTIRE THEORY.

It sounds like Tom is still trying to cover his ass with more
bull****. No, the so-called physicists did not know that. In fact,
these infinite transforms that also satisfy the null results of the
MMX have been lost in archives for years until the age of the internet
where this information is made more readily available. After all, you
don’t find them in textbooks. shrug

As Tom has suggested, you must study more in order to make better and
sound scientifically related decisions. In fact, it is a
fantastically great idea. However, Tom, due to his gross ignorance
and strong zealous belief in SR, refuses to study further. After all,
didn’t Tom claim to have a PhD? PhD’s should be able to study
independently beyond textbooks. Tom shows no such initiatives.
shrug

The dichotomy "ether vs no ether" exists purely in Koobee's mind,
it is not "real", and is not an aspect of either these theories
or of the experiments.

Heck the scientific question of “Aether yes, Aether no, or Aether
illusive” is very real, valid, and important. Right after the MMX, an
infinite numbers of mathematical hypotheses were presented to explain
these null results. They say the Aether must exist. The Lorentz
transform came later after fudging one of these infinite transforms
into one that satisfies the principle of relativity. It is wrong, but
it is worshipped as the only valid transform after the MMX. Again,
you need to study further beyond the textbooks to reach that level.
shrug

Any electromagnetic experiment that is in agreement with SR will
also be in agreement with LET, because the two theories are
experimentally indistinguishable. That of course implies that it
is hopeless to search for an experiment that distinguishes them.

Tom is showing his ignorance again through handwaving. If two
mathematical models are antithesis to each other, you must always be
able to find experiments to distinguish them apart. This should be
common sense. However, if you possess the intelligence, the
technology, or the motivation to carry out experiments to tell a
thesis and its antithesis apart is a different question. shrug

Anyway, it depends on how you interpret what LET is. If LET is based
on the Lorentz transform, you are correct in that there can be no
experiments to tell LET and SR apart. However, if LET is based on
Larmor’s transform which the Lorentz transform is mathemaGically
derived from, then you are wrong. Larmor’s transform also says the
ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REFERENCE (THUS THE AETHER) MUST EXIST. You need
more intelligence, better technology, and higher motivation to find
that Aether if Larmor’s transform is valid since mathematically
Larmor’s and the Lorentz transforms are different. shrug

But LET is hopeless in today's world: it must hypothesize a "weak interaction
ether", a "strong interaction ether", and a "gravitational ether", all with the
same transform properties but VASTLY different interactions. It must also come
to grips with quantum behavior in the interactions with these "ethers".

Yes, the shockwaves echoing down the next generation of science is
going to be amplified if science has settled on a wrong hypothesis
beforehand. This should be so obvious. shrug

SR, on the other hand, is at the foundation of all of our current theories of
physics. (This may not hold for a theory of quantum gravity, but that's a very
different discussion.)

SR has never been satisfactorily and uniquely validated by any
experiments whatsoever. Given that it is fudged mathemaGically from
something that also manifests a time paradox, SR is very certainly
wrong. shrug

Tom’s and self-styled physicists’ behaviors can easily be summarized
based on the following Orwellian traits.

** 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
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

shrug

Koobee Wublee from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:05:51 -0700 (PDT)




It sounds like Tom is still trying to cover his ass with more
bull****. No, the so-called physicists did not know that. In fact,
these infinite transforms that also satisfy the null results of the
MMX have been lost in archives for years until the age of the internet
where this information is made more readily available. After all, you
don?t find them in textbooks. shrug

In fact classical MMX is stone age.


SR, on the other hand, is at the foundation of all of our current theories of
physics. (This may not hold for a theory of quantum gravity, but that's a very
different discussion.)

SR has never been satisfactorily and uniquely validated by any
experiments whatsoever. Given that it is fudged mathemaGically from
something that also manifests a time paradox, SR is very certainly
wrong. shrug

Should I ask for evidence speaking for your claim,
of the same quality as you request for evidences speaking for SR ?


--
Poutnik

On Aug 16, 7:10 pm, Poutnik wrote:
Koobee Wublee from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:05:51 -0700 (PDT)



It sounds like Tom is still trying to cover his ass with more
bull****. No, the so-called physicists did not know that. In fact,
these infinite transforms that also satisfy the null results of the
MMX have been lost in archives for years until the age of the internet
where this information is made more readily available. After all, you
don?t find them in textbooks. shrug

In fact classical MMX is stone age.



SR, on the other hand, is at the foundation of all of our current theories of
physics. (This may not hold for a theory of quantum gravity, but that's a very
different discussion.)

SR has never been satisfactorily and uniquely validated by any
experiments whatsoever. Given that it is fudged mathemaGically from
something that also manifests a time paradox, SR is very certainly
wrong. shrug

Should I ask for evidence speaking for your claim,
of the same quality as you request for evidences speaking for SR ?

--
Poutnik

the point is, i understand, that relativity exhibits
extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary proofs

but there are no extraordinary proofs, for for instance,
black holes, length contraction, time dilation and so on

regards