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
  #11  
Old January 4th 13, 12:07 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 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
Ads
  #12  
Old January 4th 13, 01:24 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?

you are hiding behind a mass of equationary;
all that has to be shown, in modern terms, is that
the angular momenta of atoms must be taken onto account
for any acceleration toward c, which is the speed
-- not the velocity -- of light, actually ne'er achieved,
in no perfect vacuum.

in any case, the curvature of space was forensically adduced
by Erastosthenes, and instrumentally by Gauss
(surveying Allsace-Lorraine for the French government).

-Hide assholish text -
  #13  
Old January 4th 13, 09:13 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 04.01.2013 00:07, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.”


Quite.
That's the Wubleean version all right. shrug


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...


Quite.
I am sure people will laugh at me when you present the Wubleean
version of the scientific method. shrug


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)


I will take you word for that it easily can be that
if you don't know what you are doing. shrug

[snip irrelevant derivation with the purpose to
divert the attention from that fact that Wublee
insisted that to set three co-located clocks to zero
is a violation of relativity.]


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.


Quite.
The arguments are as lethal as they were in 2008:

“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.


Compute aberration without the principle of relativity? :-)
Wublee .... :-)

Why did you
replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of
2008?


The only difference between the 2008 version and the 2010 version
is that the former was written in Word, while the latter is
written in LaTex. The content is exactly the same, the changes
are purely cosmetic.

The original 2008 version:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Ste...ration_old.pdf
The 2010 version:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

In both versions I have calculated stellar aberration both
according to the Lorentz transform and according to
the Galilean transform. The difference is unmeasurable.

Because: tan(v/c) ~= sin(v/c) ~= v/c when v/c 1

The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor.
No wonder his is still too sore. Ahahahaha...


I see that you are desperate to divert the attention
from your blunder, which was that you claimed that I
had confused stellar aberration and parallax.

You don't like to be reminded of your blunders, do you? :-)


[Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped]


You mean this?

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


ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS


You really don't like to be reminded of your blunders, do you? :-)
Because it is a blunder to insist that the velocity of
the star must contribute to stellar aberration when it
is experimentally proven that it doesn't.
Isn't it?

BTW, why do you think that your whining when I remind
you of your blunders is kicking my ass? :-)

Now I will get lost.
I have had my fun for now, but I am sure you yet again
will give me an opportunity to remind you of your blunders.

Until then, have nice days!

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #14  
Old January 4th 13, 10:23 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 4, 12:13 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 04.01.2013 00:07, Koobee Wublee wrote:


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.


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


Quite.
That's the Wubleean version all right. shrug


shrug

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...


Quite.
I am sure people will laugh at me when you present the Wubleean
version of the scientific method. shrug


paul is lost as usual. 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


I will take you word for that it easily can be that
if you don't know what you are doing. shrug


Koobee Wublee can smell paul is attempting to execute another one of
his not so graceful and unsportsmanlike-conduct retreats. From the
very essence of SR, the Minkowski spacetime has the twins’ paradox
written all over it. Denying no paradox would falsify spacetime, and
there is no GR. shrug

That original pdf paper in 2008 had the gross error of computing
aberration without using the principle of relativity.


Compute aberration without the principle of relativity? :-)
Wublee .... :-)

Why did you
replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of
2008?


The only difference between the 2008 version and the 2010 version
is that the former was written in Word, while the latter is
written in LaTex. The content is exactly the same, the changes
are purely cosmetic.

Because it is a blunder to insist that the velocity of
the star must contribute to stellar aberration when it
is experimentally proven that it doesn't.


Prior to that discussion in 2008, paul had claimed aberration has
nothing to do with the velocity of the source. Then, Koobee Wublee
came down on him hard. Spanked him. The small professor then accused
Koobee Wublee of confusion in parallax and aberration and wrote these
phantom papers as distraction from his blunder. What a small
professor he is indeed. shrug

Of course, this is not the only time. Before that, paul also claimed
the correction to the GPS clock being necessary because the carrier
frequencies of the downlinks will be affected. Koobee Wublee also
came down hard on the small professor. Same thing happened. paul
skillfully deleted his posts and corrected his blunders by re-engaging
the discussions a few years later with a different story. shrug

I have had my fun for now, but I am sure you yet again
will give me an opportunity to remind you of your blunders.


paul means that he is going to busily think about a way to cover his
blunders again. shrug

Until then, have nice days!


Koobee Wublee shall have nice days, thank you. Hope you have sweet
dreams about chasing chickens instead of nightmares about the reality
of the fatal contradictions manifested in the twins’ paradox. shrug
  #15  
Old January 5th 13, 01:41 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 04.01.2013 22:23, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 4, 12:13 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Because it is a blunder to insist that the velocity of
the star must contribute to stellar aberration when it
is experimentally proven that it doesn't.


Prior to that discussion in 2008, paul had claimed aberration has
nothing to do with the velocity of the source.


Quite.
I have known for a very long time before 2008 that the speed
of the star contributes nothing to _stellar_ aberration.

Here is a posting from 2003:
http://tinyurl.com/aktft66

Read the following carefully:
Stellar aberration is the change in the angle of the beam
OBSERVED IN THE EARTH FRAME at different times of the year.
We NEVER observe the angle of the beam in the stellar frame.
It matters zip what this might be. When the star changes its
velocity (being a binary), the angle of the beam in the stellar frame
will change. But we never observe this angle so it doesn't matter.
The only thing that matters is the difference in the velocity
of the Earth frame and the resulting change of the direction in
the Earth frame.
That's why a star at the ecliptic pole is seen to move around
a circle with diameter (60km/s)/c radians.


The paper that started the discussion in 2008:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Ste...ration_old.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf


Then, Koobee Wublee
came down on him hard. Spanked him.


See Wublee spank me in 2008:
http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz

Koobee Wublee:
Allow me to claim that again. The stellar aberration is an
application of the Galilean transform for low speeds. Since the
Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity,
the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
this aberration. shrug


Paul B.Andersen:
It's more fun every time you repeat your blunder. :-)
Now it is breathtaking.

And I love to rub it in:
Ever since Bradley in 1725 for the fist time measured the stellar
aberration, it has been experimentally verified over and over again
that stellar aberrations depends _only_ on the change of the velocity
of the Earth, and of the speed of light. The velocity of the star
contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
The fact that the stellar aberration is the same for both
components of a binary makes it blazingly clear that the velocities
of the components are irrelevant.

Knowing this (you know it now), it is pretty stupid to claim:
"the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
this aberration."


I still love to rub it in! :-)

The small professor then accused
Koobee Wublee of confusion in parallax and aberration and wrote these
phantom papers as distraction from his blunder. What a small
professor he is indeed. shrug


See Wublee confuse parallax and aberration:
http://tinyurl.com/nje25b

Paul B. Andersen wrote
| Koobee Wublee thinks the following paper shows that I am
| "utterly confused between aberration and parallax".
| http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Koobee Wublee responded:
| That is very correct. shrug


Since you think the aberration in my paper is parallax,
you have confused the two. Your blunder Koobee!

Of course, this is not the only time. Before that, paul also claimed
the correction to the GPS clock being necessary because the carrier
frequencies of the downlinks will be affected. Koobee Wublee also
came down hard on the small professor.


Again, Wublee? :-)

See Koobee coming hard down on the small professor:
http://tinyurl.com/bdzm4k

It is completely beside the point to repeat over and over
that the small offset in the frequencies sent from
the satellite have no consequences whatsoever,
because nobody ever said they had.

Listen autistic idiot:
The reason, and only reason, why the frequency standard is corrected
for relativistic effects is to make the SV clock run synchronously
with the ground clocks.

That the carrier and shipping frequencies also are adjusted is
just a side effect because all frequencies are derived from
the same frequency standard.

Read this:
-----------------------------------------------------------
The important point is that if the SV clock rates were not corrected,
they would drift out of sync from GPS time after few minutes.
The clocks have to be in sync within 100 ns for the GPS to work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The carrier frequencies, like all other frequencies,
are at the receiver Doppler shifted between +/- 3E-7.
The satellites are moving!

The Doppler shift may be almost a thousand times more than
the minute GR-correction, so of bloody course the -4.4647E-10
offset is of no consequence whatsoever for the receiver!
AND NOBODY EVER SAID OTHERWISE!


This was written in August 2007, when you already had repeated
your stupid claim a number of times.
Since then, you have repeated it again and again.

You must indeed be an autistic idiot!

Same thing happened. paul
skillfully deleted his posts and corrected his blunders by re-engaging
the discussions a few years later with a different story. shrug


So I have rewritten the Google archive? :-)

I have had my fun for now, but I am sure you yet again
will give me an opportunity to remind you of your blunders.


And the opportunity came quickly! :-)

You have made many blunders, Koobee, so if you want me
to remind you of more of them, I will be at your service.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #16  
Old January 6th 13, 12:30 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 5, 4:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 04.01.2013 22:23, Koobee Wublee wrote:


It looks like paul is really haunted by his past blunders. OK, Koobee
Wublee will go easy on paul this time since Koobee Wublee still wants
paul to come back every now and then to get his butt spanked. shrug

Prior to that discussion in 2008, paul had claimed aberration has
nothing to do with the velocity of the source.


I have known for a very long time before 2008 that the speed
of the star contributes nothing to _stellar_ aberration.

Here is a posting from 2003:http://tinyurl.com/aktft66

Read the following carefully:
Stellar aberration is the change in the angle of the beam
OBSERVED IN THE EARTH FRAME at different times of the year.
We NEVER observe the angle of the beam in the stellar frame.
It matters zip what this might be. When the star changes its
velocity (being a binary), the angle of the beam in the stellar frame
will change. But we never observe this angle so it doesn't matter.
The only thing that matters is the difference in the velocity
of the Earth frame and the resulting change of the direction in
the Earth frame.
That's why a star at the ecliptic pole is seen to move around
a circle with diameter (60km/s)/c radians.


The paper that started the discussion in 2008:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Ste...ration_old.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Then, Koobee Wublee
came down on him hard. Spanked him.


See Wublee spank me in 2008: http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz

Koobee Wublee:
Allow me to claim that again. The stellar aberration is an
application of the Galilean transform for low speeds. Since the
Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity,
the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
this aberration. shrug


Paul B.Andersen:
It's more fun every time you repeat your blunder. :-)
Now it is breathtaking.

And I love to rub it in:
Ever since Bradley in 1725 for the fist time measured the stellar
aberration, it has been experimentally verified over and over again
that stellar aberrations depends _only_ on the change of the velocity
of the Earth, and of the speed of light. The velocity of the star
contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
The fact that the stellar aberration is the same for both
components of a binary makes it blazingly clear that the velocities
of the components are irrelevant.

Knowing this (you know it now), it is pretty stupid to claim:
"the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
this aberration."


I still love to rub it in! :-)

The small professor then accused
Koobee Wublee of confusion in parallax and aberration and wrote these
phantom papers as distraction from his blunder. What a small
professor he is indeed. shrug


See Wublee confuse parallax and aberration: http://tinyurl.com/nje25b

Paul B. Andersen wrote
| Koobee Wublee thinks the following paper shows that I am
| "utterly confused between aberration and parallax".
| http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Koobee Wublee responded:
| That is very correct. shrug


Since you think the aberration in my paper is parallax,
you have confused the two. Your blunder Koobee!


Once again, the little professor thinks aberration has nothing to do
with the velocity of the source that violates the principle of
relativity. If paul were to believe in the Aether which what paul is
claiming can be true since there is a medium that defines the
direction of the signal after it is emitted. This is another fine
example in paul’s blunder in using what can easily be explained by a
hypothesis that he has previously rejected. Instead, paul would
conjure up all sorts of nonsense to justify his own believe on more
garbage. It does not matter if all these believes contradict one
another. Way to go, paul. What a blunder! shrug

Of course, this is not the only time. Before that, paul also claimed
the correction to the GPS clock being necessary because the carrier
frequencies of the downlinks will be affected. Koobee Wublee also
came down hard on the small professor.


Again, Wublee? :-)

See Koobee coming hard down on the small professor:http://tinyurl.com/bdzm4k

It is completely beside the point to repeat over and over
that the small offset in the frequencies sent from
the satellite have no consequences whatsoever,
because nobody ever said they had.

Listen autistic idiot:
The reason, and only reason, why the frequency standard is corrected
for relativistic effects is to make the SV clock run synchronously
with the ground clocks.

That the carrier and shipping frequencies also are adjusted is
just a side effect because all frequencies are derived from
the same frequency standard.

Read this:
-----------------------------------------------------------
The important point is that if the SV clock rates were not corrected,
they would drift out of sync from GPS time after few minutes.
The clocks have to be in sync within 100 ns for the GPS to work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The carrier frequencies, like all other frequencies,
are at the receiver Doppler shifted between +/- 3E-7.
The satellites are moving!

The Doppler shift may be almost a thousand times more than
the minute GR-correction, so of bloody course the -4.4647E-10
offset is of no consequence whatsoever for the receiver!
AND NOBODY EVER SAID OTHERWISE!


paul has to mention the carrier frequencies because he knew earlier
Koobee Wublee had corrected on his blunder. Prior to that discussion,
paul charged in one day and had claimed the synchronization was
necessary because of the Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies.
shrug

This was written in August 2007, when you already had repeated
your stupid claim a number of times.
Since then, you have repeated it again and again.


shaking head paul still thinks synchronization of the clocks is
critical. As Koobee Wublee has stated many times over, the clock does
not matter. What is important is that all satellites need to agree on
the chronological time (accumulated by clocks). If clocks are not in
sync, it is no big deal since Simple software such as IEEE1588 type
algorithm can correct them. After all, paul is an electrical engineer
who does not understand what has to be synchronized instead of jumping
on wagons with self-style physicists beating the drums of blunders.
shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...47920d8e567050

You must indeed be an autistic idiot!


Ahahaha... paul is now resorting to personal attacks. He must feel
very frustrated of his blunders. Oh, there are more blunders.
shrug

Same thing happened. paul
skillfully deleted his posts and corrected his blunders by re-engaging
the discussions a few years later with a different story. shrug


So I have rewritten the Google archive? :-)

I have had my fun for now, but I am sure you yet again
will give me an opportunity to remind you of your blunders.


And the opportunity came quickly! :-)

You have made many blunders, Koobee, so if you want me
to remind you of more of them, I will be at your service.


paul, you forgot about the recent blunder of not knowing what
scientific method is. Could Koobee Wublee remind paul even the sperm
lover refuses to go in bed with him. Ahahahaha...

“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 and only one of the hypotheses. Or else it is
fruitless. This is what scientific method is all about.

“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”

Oh, on the blunder in the twins’ paradox, we will discuss further it
in the other thread. Please do expect more spanking from Koobee
Wublee. rolling up sleeves
  #17  
Old January 6th 13, 09:33 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 06.01.2013 00:30, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 04.01.2013 22:23, Koobee Wublee wrote:


It looks like paul is really haunted by his past blunders. OK, Koobee
Wublee will go easy on paul this time since Koobee Wublee still wants
paul to come back every now and then to get his butt spanked. shrug


I think I may be a masochist.
I enjoy your spanking, it makes me laugh.
So maybe I am only ticklish?

Prior to that discussion in 2008, paul had claimed aberration has
nothing to do with the velocity of the source.


I have known for a very long time before 2008 that the speed
of the star contributes nothing to _stellar_ aberration.

Here is a posting from 2003:http://tinyurl.com/aktft66

Read the following carefully:
Stellar aberration is the change in the angle of the beam
OBSERVED IN THE EARTH FRAME at different times of the year.
We NEVER observe the angle of the beam in the stellar frame.
It matters zip what this might be. When the star changes its
velocity (being a binary), the angle of the beam in the stellar frame
will change. But we never observe this angle so it doesn't matter.
The only thing that matters is the difference in the velocity
of the Earth frame and the resulting change of the direction in
the Earth frame.
That's why a star at the ecliptic pole is seen to move around
a circle with diameter (60km/s)/c radians.


The paper that started the discussion in 2008:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Ste...ration_old.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Then, Koobee Wublee
came down on him hard. Spanked him.


See Wublee spank me in 2008: http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz

Koobee Wublee:
Allow me to claim that again. The stellar aberration is an
application of the Galilean transform for low speeds. Since the
Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity,
the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
this aberration. shrug


Paul B.Andersen:
It's more fun every time you repeat your blunder. :-)
Now it is breathtaking.

And I love to rub it in:
Ever since Bradley in 1725 for the fist time measured the stellar
aberration, it has been experimentally verified over and over again
that stellar aberrations depends _only_ on the change of the velocity
of the Earth, and of the speed of light. The velocity of the star
contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
The fact that the stellar aberration is the same for both
components of a binary makes it blazingly clear that the velocities
of the components are irrelevant.

Knowing this (you know it now), it is pretty stupid to claim:
"the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
this aberration."


I still love to rub it in! :-)

The small professor then accused
Koobee Wublee of confusion in parallax and aberration and wrote these
phantom papers as distraction from his blunder. What a small
professor he is indeed. shrug


See Wublee confuse parallax and aberration: http://tinyurl.com/nje25b

Paul B. Andersen wrote
| Koobee Wublee thinks the following paper shows that I am
| "utterly confused between aberration and parallax".
| http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Koobee Wublee responded:
| That is very correct. shrug


Since you think the aberration in my paper is parallax,
you have confused the two. Your blunder Koobee!


See Koobee spank my butt: :-)

Once again, the little professor thinks aberration has nothing to do
with the velocity of the source that violates the principle of
relativity. If paul were to believe in the Aether which what paul is
claiming can be true since there is a medium that defines the
direction of the signal after it is emitted. This is another fine
example in paul’s blunder in using what can easily be explained by a
hypothesis that he has previously rejected. Instead, paul would
conjure up all sorts of nonsense to justify his own believe on more
garbage. It does not matter if all these believes contradict one
another. Way to go, paul. What a blunder! shrug


Why did the word "pathetic" enter my mind? :-)

Of course, this is not the only time. Before that, paul also claimed
the correction to the GPS clock being necessary because the carrier
frequencies of the downlinks will be affected. Koobee Wublee also
came down hard on the small professor.


Again, Wublee? :-)

See Koobee coming hard down on the small professor:


http://tinyurl.com/bdzm4k

It is completely beside the point to repeat over and over
that the small offset in the frequencies sent from
the satellite have no consequences whatsoever,
because nobody ever said they had.

Listen autistic idiot:
The reason, and only reason, why the frequency standard is corrected
for relativistic effects is to make the SV clock run synchronously
with the ground clocks.

That the carrier and shipping frequencies also are adjusted is
just a side effect because all frequencies are derived from
the same frequency standard.

Read this:
-----------------------------------------------------------
The important point is that if the SV clock rates were not corrected,
they would drift out of sync from GPS time after few minutes.
The clocks have to be in sync within 100 ns for the GPS to work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The carrier frequencies, like all other frequencies,
are at the receiver Doppler shifted between +/- 3E-7.
The satellites are moving!

The Doppler shift may be almost a thousand times more than
the minute GR-correction, so of bloody course the -4.4647E-10
offset is of no consequence whatsoever for the receiver!
AND NOBODY EVER SAID OTHERWISE!


And again: !! :-)

paul has to mention the carrier frequencies because he knew earlier
Koobee Wublee had corrected on his blunder. Prior to that discussion,
paul charged in one day and had claimed the synchronization was
necessary because of the Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies.
shrug


I will give you this, Koobee:
"paul charged in one day and had claimed the synchronization was
necessary because of the Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies."
is at least a new version of your false claim. :-)

You are indeed creative when it comes to invent what
I have claimed in the past!

Of course you don't have to find the postings where I did all
those blunders, everybody will take your word for what
I have said in the past. :-)

This was written in August 2007, when you already had repeated
your stupid claim a number of times.
Since then, you have repeated it again and again.


So it was about time that you invented a new version! :-)

shaking head paul still thinks synchronization of the clocks is
critical. As Koobee Wublee has stated many times over, the clock does
not matter. What is important is that all satellites need to agree on
the chronological time (accumulated by clocks). If clocks are not in
sync, it is no big deal since Simple software such as IEEE1588 type
algorithm can correct them. After all, paul is an electrical engineer
who does not understand what has to be synchronized instead of jumping
on wagons with self-style physicists beating the drums of blunders.
shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...47920d8e567050


Thank you for saving me for the work of digging up postings
which demonstrate your ignorance of how the GPS works. :-)

(Not that they are hard to find. They are rather numerous.)


Same thing happened. paul
skillfully deleted his posts and corrected his blunders by re-engaging
the discussions a few years later with a different story. shrug


So I have rewritten the Google archive? :-)

I have had my fun for now, but I am sure you yet again
will give me an opportunity to remind you of your blunders.


And the opportunity came quickly! :-)

You have made many blunders, Koobee, so if you want me
to remind you of more of them, I will be at your service.


paul, you forgot about the recent blunder of not knowing what
scientific method is. Could Koobee Wublee remind paul even the sperm
lover refuses to go in bed with him. Ahahahaha...

“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 and only one of the hypotheses. Or else it is
fruitless. This is what scientific method is all about.

“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”


And with that beautiful demonstration of the Wubleean
version of the scientific method, I stand corrected.

You don't have to find an experiment which falsifies SR
to falsify SR. SR is falsified by the fact that the MMX
confirms other theories like the ballistic light theory.

Oh, on the blunder in the twins’ paradox, we will discuss further it
in the other thread. Please do expect more spanking from Koobee
Wublee. rolling up sleeves


Quite.
You are free to spank me as much as you want.
It hurts nothing but possibly my stomach muscles.

--
Paul, with a sore stomach from Wublee's butt spanking

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #18  
Old January 8th 13, 02:57 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?

ah, ho, hum, you, two.

if you would stop using the artifice of spacetime,
with its retrodaction of the "pure, imaginary vectors"
of quaternions, to the pure, imaginary timeline
of the lightconeheads ... any way.

read more »


thus:
my main concern, for using diadians (or tau) is that
the simplicity of (viz) radar distances is obscured;
also, how to avoid confusion with radians (or "pi+pi"),
since pi is generally considered to be a dimensionless constant,
by some argument or other.

--yay; a new proof of Fermat's 'little' theorm!
  #19  
Old January 8th 13, 08:03 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?

anywy, Kooby Doo cannot give a simple (prosaic) explanation,
probably mainly because of Minkowsi's sloganeering
about time & space ... which, of course, is carried-out
to the masses by Hawking et al ad vomitorium,
with different iterations of "imaginary time." but,
it is not so much as a dimension, as it is subjectivity
o'er one's lifetime ... worldline?
  #20  
Old January 10th 13, 07:07 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Mahipal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default What is or is not a paradox?

On Jan 3, 6:07*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.”


KW, you can never teach the willfully blind to see a rainbow.

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


Only an idiot would write what Paul did.

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)


That's my favorite equation of all time! Just love it.

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


Nice connection! ONJ and Born. "Have you never been mellow, have you
never tried, to find the comfort, from inside..." try Dan Singh with
QT's VV of Travolta fame. Sorry, I had one of those greasy free
thought moments.

Actually KW, I was searching for your recent Zardoz reference, and
instead, found beautiful Born Olivia. Still perusing threads...

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


KW... never be intimidated by they-the-them ganging up on you.

Enjo(y)... Cheers!
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
"If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive
you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!"
 




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 10:57 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.