Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Abuse of Scientific Methods
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Koobee Wublee
Jun 5, 2013, 12:25:06 PM6/5/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
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/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
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
** BULLSHIT 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>
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/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
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
** BULLSHIT 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>
Koobee Wublee
Jun 5, 2013, 4:34:17 PM6/5/13
to
On Jun 5, 11:37 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> 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 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
>
> > 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/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > 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>
>
> bullshit again. nothing in your post nor in the wikipedia article you
> > 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/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > 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>
>
> 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. :-)
Koobee Wublee
Jun 5, 2013, 7:42:40 PM6/5/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> > 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.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae
> > 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.
>
Bruce Sinclair
Jun 5, 2013, 7:11:18 PM6/5/13
to
In article <9b4b96b6-1b8c-4d6c...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Does anyone object to Richard Feynman=92s definition of scientific
>method?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEYPapE-3FRw
I sure don't need to watch a video on the subject. :)
>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
>Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and
>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
>do explain how.
I sure don't need to watch a video on the subject. :)
hanson
Jun 5, 2013, 8:25:34 PM6/5/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> 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
> On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > 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
>
> > 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
> > 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/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > 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.
> > 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/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > 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
Koobee Wublee does not have to demonstrate the experimental results
produced by the self-styled physicists. Tom has already acknowledged
technology. <shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae
>
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 Dawgshit 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"______.
>
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 5, 2013, 8:34:19 PM6/5/13
to
they are very simple, quadratic theories,
only obfuscated by historical impediments: a)
doctor Teimennspacenn's bogus slogans about phase-spaces;
b)
belief in Pascal's absolute vacuum and c)
thereby-necessitated "newtonian rocks o'light
> . _____ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
only obfuscated by historical impediments: a)
doctor Teimennspacenn's bogus slogans about phase-spaces;
b)
belief in Pascal's absolute vacuum and c)
thereby-necessitated "newtonian rocks o'light
> . _____ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
Koobee Wublee
Jun 5, 2013, 8:44:58 PM6/5/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Jun 5, 5:25 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> 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
>
> On Jun 5, 1:43 pm, Fatso Absolutely Testicle wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > 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
>
> > >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
> > > 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/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > > 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
> > > 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/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > > 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.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff...
> technology. <shrug>
>
>
> 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 Dawgshit 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"______.
Thank you for pointing this out. Please keep up with the great works.
> 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 Dawgshit 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"______.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 5, 2013, 8:49:36 PM6/5/13
to
it's just quadratic eqautions,
completely verified insofar as not pertinent
to a) ==
plasma physics, and b)
stringtheory.
> > . _____ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
completely verified insofar as not pertinent
to a) ==
plasma physics, and b)
stringtheory.
> > . _____ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
Koobee Wublee
Jun 6, 2013, 2:01:02 AM6/6/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> > 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.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae
>
> > If PD aka absolutely imbecile wants to deny the fact that so far
> > 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.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae
>
> > any experiments have not uniquely verified SR, that is entirely
> > its problem and its only.
>
> don't flatter yourself. tom was not referring to the different
> transforms you are referring to.
Is PD aka absolutely imbecile aka the little bitch Tom’s bitch now?
Why doesn’t PD aka absolutely imbecile let Tom speak for himself?
<shrug>
> you have not backed up what you said, and you cannot.
PD aka absolutely imbecile just does not get it, Koobee Wublee is sure
that is one of the reasons why it was fired as a professor of physics
at University of Texas. <shrug>
The self-styled physicists do not study. They stopped at the Lorentz
transform without understanding how it was derived in the first
place. In doing so, they mystically attributed this divine act of
miracle to their god aka Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar, and the works prior to their god’s presence was conveniently
forgotten. On the other hand, Koobee Wublee has gone beyond the
Lorentz transform and has studied on the previous manifestations of
this transform like a true scientist should have done in the first
place. Not knowing about the existence of the antitheses to SR, they
have bet their lives on the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
The so-called co-moderator of sci.physics.research realized
immediately that if the post were to be published over there, his
“great works” on particle physics would be greatly compromised. As
predicted, he is behaving like a priest from Ancient Nile delta
attempting to desperately maintain to his elite status quo. <shrug>
Eventually, SR will be trashcanned due to its stupidity, and the self-
styled physicists’ names will be dragged in mud. If that will happen
anyway, the self-styled physicists might as well milk the system as
much as they can until they are booted out. <shrug>
A few, like Tom, would cling on to a thread of hope believing that
someday experiments will validate only SR and not its antitheses. If
they actually do their own diligence and study like what Tom has
suggested all to do, they will realize SR is just full of mathematical
inconsistencies which Koobee Wublee has addressed each one many times
over in these newsgroups. The chance of salvation by a future
experiment is indeed a pipe dream. <shrug>
How does Koobee Wublee know and understand how the self-styled
physicists think? :-)
Thomas Heger
Jun 6, 2013, 2:17:29 PM6/6/13
to
Am 05.06.2013 18:25, schrieb Koobee Wublee:
> Does anyone object to Richard Feynman�s definition of scientific
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
> 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
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>
> Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and
> 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,
> 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
> 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:Minkowski_lightcone_lorentztransform.svg
> 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>
>
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
0 new messages