|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is or is not a paradox? | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 9 | January 2nd 13 04:41 PM |
The Cow Paradox | Keith Wood | SETI | 5 | December 30th 06 12:10 AM |
what if paradox | kjakja | Misc | 130 | December 12th 04 04:09 AM |