A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Abuse of Scientific Methods



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 5th 13, 05:25 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.chem
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default 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
  #2  
Old June 5th 13, 06:21 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Absolutely Vertical
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods

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.
  #3  
Old June 5th 13, 07:22 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods

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
  #4  
Old June 5th 13, 07:37 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Absolutely Vertical
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods

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.

  #5  
Old June 5th 13, 09:34 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.chem
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods

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. :-)


  #6  
Old June 5th 13, 09:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Absolutely Vertical
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods

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. :-)



  #7  
Old June 5th 13, 11:38 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods


Fatso was "Absolutely Vertical"
honest about his tripe which he said was "bull****".

hanson wrote:
Fatso, kudos for your introspection and admission.

PS:
Koobee Wublee, it was hilarious how you took
Fatso down... AHAHAHAHAHA....ROTFLMAO

Fatso, don't get angry, cry too hard or for too long.
KW has rescued many Einstein Dingleberries from
worshipping Albert's sphincter, who were far more
passionately misguided fanatics than you are.
Be grateful, apologize and thank KW now.
  #8  
Old June 6th 13, 12:11 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.chem
Bruce Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods

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.


  #9  
Old June 6th 13, 12:42 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.chem
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods

On Jun 5, 1:43 pm, 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


Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? shrug


not likely. you haven't demonstrated anything yet.


Koobee Wublee does not have to demonstrate the experimental results
produced by the self-styled physicists. Tom has already acknowledged
that SR and its antitheses are indistinguishable given today’s
technology. shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...6f9bf6fff69aae

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.


[rest of repeating rants snipped]

  #10  
Old June 6th 13, 01:25 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.chem
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default Abuse of Scientific Methods


"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
On Jun 5, 1:43 pm, Fatso 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


Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? shrug


not likely. you haven't demonstrated anything yet.


KW wrote:
Koobee Wublee does not have to demonstrate the experimental results
produced by the self-styled physicists. Tom has already acknowledged
that SR and its antitheses are indistinguishable given today’s
technology. shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...6f9bf6fff69aae

hanson wrote:
KW, one of the highlights in your link above are the comments
when "Fatso" rolled around & called himself "Big Dog"
as seen in example:...

Big Dog"'s Dawg**** also omits to mention that Roberts
already said "uncle" to KW, and then [TR:] puts it rather
eloquently, that:

[TR:] _ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"_, iow:
.. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
.. _____ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.


 




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
Construction methods Brian Gaff Space Station 1 April 5th 13 12:30 AM
multiscale methods Statistica Sinica UK Astronomy 0 February 11th 08 01:09 PM
More Scientific Predictions From Profound Science Officers Becoming Scientific Based Real World Applied Extensions Double-A[_1_] Misc 0 May 23rd 07 06:49 PM
More Scientific Predictions From Profound Science Officers Becoming Scientific Based Real World Applied Extensions Double-A[_1_] Misc 0 May 23rd 07 06:48 PM
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding? G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 11 February 5th 07 09:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.