Abuse of Scientific Methods

Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of scientific
method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and
discussion, but please don’t let that intimidate you. If you think
Feynman is wrong on the process leading to scientific methods, please
do explain how. If not, please continue. shrug

Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds all
experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat is
exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. shrug

Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and urge
everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not done. If
so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s transform,
and infinite others do also satisfy in every single experimental
result that validates SR including satisfying the null results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled physicists have
studied beyond the textbooks, they would have realized these
transformations other than SR say the absolute frame of reference must
exist which make them the antitheses to SR. shrug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ransformations

IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES. Thus,
bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its antitheses is
just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY, SR HAS NEVER BEEN
VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. shrug

Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very afraid of
going there. shrug

Koobee Wublee tried to publish this post at sci.physics.research but
encountered rejection with explanation below. shrug

- - -

Your posting is inappropriate for sci.physics.research since it
contradicts established empirical facts concerning the validity of the
special theory of relativity.

With kindest regards,
Hendrik van Hees.
sci.physics.research co-moderator
Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies
D-60438 Frankfurt am Main
http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/

- - -

Basically, the post will destroy the religion of SR. shrug

Is there any doubt that the Orwellian philosophy is well indoctrinated
among the self-styled physicists?

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONSPIRACY IS PEER
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

shrug

On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
However, studying is what they have not done. If
so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s transform,
and infinite others do also satisfy in every single experimental
result that validates SR including satisfying the null results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment.

bull****. back up your ridiculous statement.
if you don't, then you will be known forever as the man who makes
ridiculous statements without backup.

On Jun 5, 10:21 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of
scientific method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. shrug

Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not
done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s
transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
shrug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ransformations

IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. shrug

Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
afraid of going there. shrug

bull****. back up your ridiculous statement.
if you don't, then you will be known forever as the man who makes
ridiculous statements without backup.

Already backed up in the section where PD aka absolutely imbecile had
snipped. You need to study for a change instead of ranting about
garbage. shrug

On 6/5/2013 1:22 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:21 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of
scientific method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. shrug

Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not
done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s
transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
shrug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ransformations

IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. shrug

Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
afraid of going there. shrug

bull****. back up your ridiculous statement.
if you don't, then you will be known forever as the man who makes
ridiculous statements without backup.

Already backed up in the section where PD aka absolutely imbecile had
snipped. You need to study for a change instead of ranting about
garbage. shrug


bull**** again. nothing in your post nor in the wikipedia article you
reference provided any -- repeat, any -- demonstration that the other
transforms are consistent with 'every single experimental result that
validates sr'.

so far, you are working hard to be known forever as the man who makes
ridiculous statements without backup.

On Jun 5, 11:37 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of
scientific method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. shrug

Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not
done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s
transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
shrug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ransformations

IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. shrug

Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
afraid of going there. shrug

bull**** again. nothing in your post nor in the wikipedia article you
reference provided any -- repeat, any -- demonstration that the other
transforms are consistent with 'every single experimental result that
validates sr'.

So, basically if it can be shown that all experimental verifications
to SR also verify the antitheses to SR, the self-styled physicists
will have to accept that SR has never been verified through
experimentations. Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? shrug

so far, you are working hard to be known forever as the man who makes
ridiculous statements without backup.

If you want to deny the fact that so far any experiments have not
uniquely verified SR, that is entirely your problem and yours only.
Tom already knows that given today’s technology, SR and its antitheses
are indistinguishable despite drastically different in mathematics.
shrug

At this stage, Koobee Wublee rests. PD aka absolutely imbecile is
indeed an absolute idiot. :-)

On 6/5/2013 3:34 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:37 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of
scientific method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. shrug

Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not
done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s
transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
shrug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ransformations

IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. shrug

Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
afraid of going there. shrug

bull**** again. nothing in your post nor in the wikipedia article you
reference provided any -- repeat, any -- demonstration that the other
transforms are consistent with 'every single experimental result that
validates sr'.

So, basically if it can be shown that all experimental verifications
to SR also verify the antitheses to SR, the self-styled physicists
will have to accept that SR has never been verified through
experimentations.

it will show that sr has not been singled out as a superior model over
the other ones, yes.

Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? shrug

not likely. you haven't demonstrated anything yet.


so far, you are working hard to be known forever as the man who makes
ridiculous statements without backup.

If you want to deny the fact that so far any experiments have not
uniquely verified SR, that is entirely your problem and yours only.

aha, so you don't have any backup to your ridiculous statement. not a
surprise.

Tom already knows that given today’s technology, SR and its antitheses
are indistinguishable despite drastically different in mathematics.
shrug

bull****. and you are now forever known as the guy who makes ridiculous
statements without backup.


At this stage, Koobee Wublee rests. PD aka absolutely imbecile is
indeed an absolute idiot. :-)

In article , Koobee Wublee wrote:
Does anyone object to Richard Feynman=92s definition of scientific
method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEYPapE-3FRw

Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and
discussion, but please don=92t let that intimidate you. If you think
Feynman is wrong on the process leading to scientific methods, please
do explain how.

It's well defined in many places. No further definitions are necessary, and
I sure don't need to watch a video on the subject.

Am 05.06.2013 18:25, schrieb Koobee Wublee:
Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of scientific
method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and
discussion, but please don’t let that intimidate you. If you think
Feynman is wrong on the process leading to scientific methods, please
do explain how. If not, please continue.shrug

Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds all
experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat is
exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR.shrug

Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and urge
everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not done. If
so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s transform,
and infinite others do also satisfy in every single experimental
result that validates SR including satisfying the null results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled physicists have
studied beyond the textbooks, they would have realized these
transformations other than SR say the absolute frame of reference must
exist which make them the antitheses to SR.shrug




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M...ztransform.svg

This a Minkowski diagramm of a light cone.

If c is constant, than the term 'space' must refer to the light-cone and
not to what is called x.

We see things in our own past light cone and cannot see into the
direction called x.

Since with a Lorentz transform the 'real' direction of x changes, that
direction is not 'real' neither.

So 'space' is just an observation and that is relative. Movement does
not make trains shorter or seconds longer, but enable a view into a
different world.

The flaw of SRT is, that it depends on a preferred 'inertial' FoR. This
does not exist and we have acceleration as mayor influence on time, not
movement.

This is proven by experiments like that at the Harvard towers. Or the so
called Pioneer anomaly could be understood that way.

The 'twin paradox' could be solved that way, too, since the effect of
'time-dilation' is compensated by 'time-contraction' then (because of
deceleration).

Next flaw is the speedlimit of c, since the angle 45° (in the diagram)
refers to c and the direction x to infinite velocity.

We cannot see infinite velocity (because light moves with c). But this
does not mean, such relation do not exist.

We have in fact a spectrum of velocity, from zero to infinity. Zero is
the feature of a mass and infinity the feature of a static field. Both
combined make an atom.

Since the direction x is relative, this would mean, that matter is
'relative', too.


TH