A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is or is not a paradox?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 2nd 13, 07:38 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

[snipped SR sermons]

At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.

[snipped more SR scriptures]

But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
which aren't science.


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
** Larmorís 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

The following sum up 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
** 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
Ads
  #2  
Old January 2nd 13, 11:14 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

[snipped SR sermons]

At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.

[snipped more SR scriptures]

But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
which aren't science.


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.


SIC!!!!

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
** Larmorís 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


Dirk, immortal fumble?


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #3  
Old January 3rd 13, 03:14 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
John Gogo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On Jan 2, 12:38*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

[snipped SR sermons]


At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.


[snipped more SR scriptures]


But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
which aren't science.


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
** *Larmorís 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

The following sum up 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
** * * 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


This reminds me of the Young/Forbes toothed-wheel of 1891- the toothed-
wheel observed two line of sight light sources that were separated by
a distance- and determined that their distances were instant and
simultaneous through the aperture of the wheel. This at once, created
extreme criticism because it predicted something that was not
anticipated like the results of the MM experiment.
  #4  
Old January 3rd 13, 03:25 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
John Gogo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On Jan 2, 8:14*pm, John Gogo wrote:
On Jan 2, 12:38*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:









On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:


[snipped SR sermons]


At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.


[snipped more SR scriptures]


But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
which aren't science.


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
** *Larmorís 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


The following sum up 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
** * * 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


This reminds me of the Young/Forbes toothed-wheel of 1891- the toothed-
wheel observed two line of sight light sources that were separated by
a distance- and determined that their distances were instant and
simultaneous through the aperture of the wheel. *This at once, created
extreme criticism because it predicted something that was not
anticipated like the results of the MM experiment.


It is the models which produce the philosophical paradoxes. If
Michelson would have predicted an aether- relativity would have lived
an everlasting life. But, this did not happen.
  #5  
Old January 3rd 13, 03:37 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On 1/2/13 8:25 PM, John Gogo wrote:
If Michelson would have predicted an aether- relativity would have lived
an everlasting life.


Actually, for the time being, relativity does have an everlasting
life as there has never been an observation that contradicts a
prediction of relativity. It remains out best theory of gravitation,
matter, space and time.


  #6  
Old January 3rd 13, 03:39 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default What is or is not a paradox?

I'd have liked to have seen your article on gyros,
re relativity. anyway, "paradoxy" is simply attempts
to resolve between "orthodoxy" and "heterodoxy,"
with the paradoxes of Xeno taken as exemplars
relating to the convergence of sums of geometrical series;
the real problem is Minkowski's bogus "spactimey" orthodoxy,
and all of the lightconeheads up to and beyond Feynman:
totally obfusfacatory; simply use quaternionsa,
wherein Hamilton's lagnuage of vector mechamics uses the "real,
scalar" part to be the time "dimension."
  #7  
Old January 3rd 13, 09:57 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 02.01.2013 19:38, 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.


SIC!!!!

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
** Larmorís 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


Dirk, immortal fumble?


paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twinsí paradox.
Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific
method. 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 donít
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
  #8  
Old January 3rd 13, 11:41 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On 03.01.2013 09:57, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 02.01.2013 19:38, 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.


SIC!!!!

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
** Larmorís 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


Dirk, immortal fumble?


paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twinsí paradox.


My mathematic trick:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

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.

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 donít
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.

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

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

And you also proved that even if it is experimentally
proven that the velocity of the star contributes nothing
to stellar aberration, the velocity of the star is
very much important in determining this aberration.
http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #9  
Old January 3rd 13, 06:22 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default What is or is not a paradox?

that was funny, although I don't usually link
to stuff, and did not. poor Kooby Doobyy and his tired aetherism.

I suppose that he takes Russel's illinguistic paradoxes on faith,
anyway -- praise Lawd Berty!
  #10  
Old January 3rd 13, 06:28 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default What is or is not a paradox?

MandM did not refute or confirm an aether, theory of;
the very first page of their report mentions the regular anamoly
that they found in the experiment.

anyway, since our comprehension of the properties of atoms
in "free space, whose index of refraction is nearly one, like air"
the aether is of no use, what ever. for example,
to explain the ttoally wavelike behavior of light,
adduced in Young's two-pinhole experiment etc.

If Michelson would have predicted an aether- relativity would have lived

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.