|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
[snipped SR sermons] At present, there are no experiments that refute SR. [snipped more SR scriptures] But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations, which aren't science. Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** 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 The following sum up the self-styled physicists. ** FAITH IS LOGIC ** LYING IS TEACHING ** DECEIT IS VALIDATION ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** FICTION IS THEORY ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** WORSHIP IS STUDY ** BULL**** IS TRUTH ** ARROGANCE IS SAGE ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote: [snipped SR sermons] At present, there are no experiments that refute SR. [snipped more SR scriptures] But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations, which aren't science. Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. SIC!!!! Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** 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 Dirk, immortal fumble? -- Paul http://www.gethome.no/paulba/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On Jan 2, 12:38*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote: [snipped SR sermons] At present, there are no experiments that refute SR. [snipped more SR scriptures] But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations, which aren't science. Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. *This is scientific method. Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. *Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. *Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. *This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. *shrug Antitheses to SR a ** *Voigt transformation ** *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 The following sum up the self-styled physicists. ** * * * * *FAITH IS LOGIC ** * * * * *LYING IS TEACHING ** * * * * DECEIT IS VALIDATION ** * * * * NITWIT IS GENIUS ** * * * * OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** * * * *FICTION IS THEORY ** * * * *FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** * * * *PARADOX IS KOSHER ** * * * *WORSHIP IS STUDY ** * * * BULL**** IS TRUTH ** * * *ARROGANCE IS SAGE ** * * *BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** * * *IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** * * *MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** * * *SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM ** * * CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** * * HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** * * PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** * * PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** * *FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** * *MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** *INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION shrug This reminds me of the Young/Forbes toothed-wheel of 1891- the toothed- wheel observed two line of sight light sources that were separated by a distance- and determined that their distances were instant and simultaneous through the aperture of the wheel. This at once, created extreme criticism because it predicted something that was not anticipated like the results of the MM experiment. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On Jan 2, 8:14*pm, John Gogo wrote:
On Jan 2, 12:38*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote: [snipped SR sermons] At present, there are no experiments that refute SR. [snipped more SR scriptures] But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations, which aren't science. Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. *This is scientific method. Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. *Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. *Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. *This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. *shrug Antitheses to SR a ** *Voigt transformation ** *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 The following sum up the self-styled physicists. ** * * * * *FAITH IS LOGIC ** * * * * *LYING IS TEACHING ** * * * * DECEIT IS VALIDATION ** * * * * NITWIT IS GENIUS ** * * * * OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** * * * *FICTION IS THEORY ** * * * *FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** * * * *PARADOX IS KOSHER ** * * * *WORSHIP IS STUDY ** * * * BULL**** IS TRUTH ** * * *ARROGANCE IS SAGE ** * * *BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** * * *IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** * * *MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** * * *SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM ** * * CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** * * HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** * * PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** * * PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** * *FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** * *MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** *INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION shrug This reminds me of the Young/Forbes toothed-wheel of 1891- the toothed- wheel observed two line of sight light sources that were separated by a distance- and determined that their distances were instant and simultaneous through the aperture of the wheel. *This at once, created extreme criticism because it predicted something that was not anticipated like the results of the MM experiment. It is the models which produce the philosophical paradoxes. If Michelson would have predicted an aether- relativity would have lived an everlasting life. But, this did not happen. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On 1/2/13 8:25 PM, John Gogo wrote:
If Michelson would have predicted an aether- relativity would have lived an everlasting life. Actually, for the time being, relativity does have an everlasting life as there has never been an observation that contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains out best theory of gravitation, matter, space and time. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
I'd have liked to have seen your article on gyros,
re relativity. anyway, "paradoxy" is simply attempts to resolve between "orthodoxy" and "heterodoxy," with the paradoxes of Xeno taken as exemplars relating to the convergence of sums of geometrical series; the real problem is Minkowski's bogus "spactimey" orthodoxy, and all of the lightconeheads up to and beyond Feynman: totally obfusfacatory; simply use quaternionsa, wherein Hamilton's lagnuage of vector mechamics uses the "real, scalar" part to be the time "dimension." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote: Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. SIC!!!! Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** 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 Dirk, immortal fumble? paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox. Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific method. The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein Dingleberry anyway? :-) Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On 03.01.2013 09:57, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote: Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. SIC!!!! Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** 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 Dirk, immortal fumble? paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox. My mathematic trick: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific method. Quite. It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific method is way beyond my mental abilities. The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein Dingleberry anyway? :-) Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why 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. For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero at the instant when they were co-located: http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8 And you made me aware that I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf had confused parallax and aberration: http://tinyurl.com/nje25b And you also proved that even if it is experimentally proven that the velocity of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration, the velocity of the star is very much important in determining this aberration. http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz -- Paul http://www.gethome.no/paulba/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
that was funny, although I don't usually link
to stuff, and did not. poor Kooby Doobyy and his tired aetherism. I suppose that he takes Russel's illinguistic paradoxes on faith, anyway -- praise Lawd Berty! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
MandM did not refute or confirm an aether, theory of;
the very first page of their report mentions the regular anamoly that they found in the experiment. anyway, since our comprehension of the properties of atoms in "free space, whose index of refraction is nearly one, like air" the aether is of no use, what ever. for example, to explain the ttoally wavelike behavior of light, adduced in Young's two-pinhole experiment etc. If Michelson would have predicted an aether- relativity would have lived |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |