Einstein - Greatest Human to have ever existed.

Don Stockbauer

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 9:31:55 PM10/1/12

to

No need for any proof, totally self-evident.

John Gogo

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 10:00:23 PM10/1/12

to

On Oct 1, 8:31 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No need for any proof, totally self-evident.

I would say that P.W. Bridgman would also qualify.

John Gogo

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 10:08:44 PM10/1/12

to

It was once said, that there were but a handful of scientists who
could actually understand Einstein's concept of relativity. Are we
now saying (as judged from the large quantity of of subscribers on
sci. physics. rel.) that, now we more educated?

John Gogo

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 10:36:03 PM10/1/12

to

On Oct 1, 9:00 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There is no doubt that Einstein was a great man. But, Bridgman, not
only had a philosophy of the way things should be- he also received
the Nobel Prize in high pressure physics- he actually advanced real
science in practice.

John Gogo

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 11:00:23 PM10/1/12

to

Bridgman invented the concept "the operational point of view" which is
still accepted in mainstream science.

Jud Pewther

unread,

Oct 2, 2012, 2:09:48 AM10/2/12

to

On Oct 1, 10:08 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It was once said, that there were but a handful of scientists who
> could actually understand Einstein's concept of relativity. Are we
> now saying (as judged from the large quantity of of subscribers on
> sci. physics. rel.) that, now we more educated?

I think I have heard that statement in the past, back in the 1950s
when I was a kid back in Kansas. But who said it? My guess is that
it is one of those silly statements like, "We only use 10 percent of
our brain power." Some nameless person says it, someone likes the
sound of it and repeats it, and then many repeat it. But it has
nothing to do with reality. The fact is, any bright science or
engineering student can learn the essentials of special relativity in
a first year college physics course. I did. You hardly even need
calculus. But I'm very rusty now, 40 years later. I guess general
relativity is a lot harder. I never had a course in that. Hopefully,
anyone with advanced degrees in physics has a decent understanding of
it.

I'm only an occasional visitor here, but I can see that there are a
lot of naysayers at this newsgroup who clearly have no understanding
of relativity, not even at the elementary level of special relativity
taught in first year college physics. I've noticed that Paul B.
Andersen does have a very good grasp of it, and spends a lot of time
with the hopeless task of trying to correct the nitwits. Whether
there are any real experts in general relativity here, I am not
competent to judge. And as I said, I'm only an occasional visitor.

Jud

Alen

unread,

Oct 2, 2012, 10:56:57 AM10/2/12

to

On Oct 2, 11:31 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No need for any proof, totally self-evident.

Sorry, but that is the wildest exaggeration. Apart from
anything else, it would be arrogance in a physicist to
suppose that the greatest human ever would have to
be a physicist

Alen

luke...@gmail.com

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 7:33:41 AM10/3/12

to

I think you'll find it's really Anthony Gatto

JT

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 9:23:20 AM10/3/12

to

On 2 Okt, 03:31, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No need for any proof, totally self-evident.

Well i see Einstein and his SRIANS (Hawking included) more like an
annoying fungus upon Newtons foot.

Big Dog

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 9:51:35 AM10/3/12

to

Which would be interesting if you knew anything about Newtonian physics.

Vilas Tamhane

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 9:54:55 AM10/3/12

to

It is my pleasure to meet you. I am one of those nitwits. May be you
can correct me. Please take a look at my post and comment on it.

Vilas Tamhane

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 10:00:24 AM10/3/12

to

On Oct 2, 11:09 am, Jud Pewther <jpewt...@aol.com> wrote:

Sorry for the mix-up. This is what I posted in other thread.

It is foolish to say that time is relative. In fact, according to SR,
all the inertial clocks tick exactly at the same rate in their own
frames. So when they are ticking at the same rate, question of
measuring time flow from different frame does not arise.

1. Bob measures Dave’s clock running slow.
2. Dave measures Bob’s clock running slow.
3. Bob and Dave find their own clocks running at equal rates.

If we don’t adhere to insane theory of relativity, then we have to
look at above three statements to arrive at correct conclusion. If (3)
is true, and even SR says so, then (1) and (2) are wrong. In short,
time flow is absolute. Unless any of the clock actually runs slow in
their own frame, (1) and (2) measurements are erroneous. They are
apparent.

Vilas Tamhane

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 10:06:18 AM10/3/12

to

But even among physicists, he was not greatest. On the contrary, he
was the terminator. He terminated rationality and introduced occult in
physics. Those who accepted his theory are more to blame but so far as
Einstein is concerned, he was a rot of which body of science quickly
got infected.

Big Dog

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 10:14:48 AM10/3/12

to

> 1. Bob measures Daveï¿½s clock running slow.
> 2. Dave measures Bobï¿½s clock running slow.

> 3. Bob and Dave find their own clocks running at equal rates.

I think you'd be better off describing things the way that SR *really*
describes things. The way you've described it is so loosely and poorly
said that it is inaccurate.

>
> If we donï¿½t adhere to insane theory of relativity, then we have to

Big Dog

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 10:17:20 AM10/3/12

to

On 10/3/2012 9:06 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Oct 2, 7:56 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 11:31 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No need for any proof, totally self-evident.
>>
>> Sorry, but that is the wildest exaggeration. Apart from
>> anything else, it would be arrogance in a physicist to
>> suppose that the greatest human ever would have to
>> be a physicist
>>
>> Alen
>
> But even among physicists, he was not greatest.

That statement is accurate.

> On the contrary, he
> was the terminator. He terminated rationality and introduced occult in
> physics.

That statement is inaccurate.
You have confused "rationality" with "classical physics" and "occult"
with "modern physics".

You belong to the clan that says "If it isn't classical physics, then it
makes no sense, because only classical physics can make sense."
Which is a remarkable statement from someone who doesn't even understand
classical physics well.

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 8:58:54 PM10/3/12

to

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:236d610d-2170-4143...@lo4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

==============================================

Oh dear... Spewter notices Andersen, but Andersen converses almost

exclusively with Wilson who converses with myself and Jerry,

identifying Spewter as the faggot Tom&Jeery aka “Minor Crank” with

the multiple personality disorder, plain as the nose on your face to

anyone with a decade of experience with usenet. Surely it cannot be

a pleasure to meet such a mentally disturbed individual?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

He’s right in one respect, though. One does not need calculus

to understand tA’-tB = rAB/(c+v) differs from tB-tA = rAB/(c-v),

or that the cretin Einstein’s assertion tA’-tB = tB-tA is insanity.

Insane naysayers Spewter and Andersen will accept the impossible

as they have their own axes to grind.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

space...@gmail.com

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 9:22:32 PM10/3/12

to

On Monday, October 1, 2012 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> No need for any proof, totally self-evident.

Einstein himself disagreed.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Oct 4, 2012, 1:38:51 AM10/4/12

to

On Oct 1, 11:09 pm, Jud Pewther <jpewt...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 10:08 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > It was once said, that there were but a handful of scientists who
> > could actually understand Einstein's concept of relativity. Are we
> > now saying (as judged from the large quantity of of subscribers on
> > sci. physics. rel.) that, now we more educated?
>
> I think I have heard that statement in the past, back in the 1950s
> when I was a kid back in Kansas. But who said it? My guess is that
> it is one of those silly statements like, "We only use 10 percent of
> our brain power." Some nameless person says it, someone likes the
> sound of it and repeats it, and then many repeat it. But it has
> nothing to do with reality. The fact is, any bright science or
> engineering student can learn the essentials of special relativity in
> a first year college physics course. I did. You hardly even need
> calculus. But I'm very rusty now, 40 years later.

Yes, Koobee Wublee did understand Special Relativity and never did
question it until after college where the motivation to learning is
not rewarded by high grades any more. <shrug>

> I guess general
> relativity is a lot harder. I never had a course in that. Hopefully,
> anyone with advanced degrees in physics has a decent understanding of
> it.

The concept of General Relativity is actually simpler. However, the
math involved is horrendously more different, but it is all
mechanical. <shrug>

> I'm only an occasional visitor here, but I can see that there are a
> lot of naysayers at this newsgroup who clearly have no understanding
> of relativity, not even at the elementary level of special relativity
> taught in first year college physics.

Didn’t you say you are rusty? How can you trust your own judgments?
<shrug>

> I've noticed that Paul B.
> Andersen does have a very good grasp of it, and spends a lot of time
> with the hopeless task of trying to correct the nitwits.

That very small professor from the Trondheim University in Norway whom
you hailed as a defender of the religion known as Special and General
Relativity does not even understand the simple Galilean transform. It
is so evident in his JAVA applet about lack of the twins’ paradox in
which he played mathematical tricks on the parties involved in a
transform. With you being very rusty, naturally, you are bedazzled by
small professor andersen’s mathemagics. <shrug>

Oh, the very small professor once told me that why time dilation
needed to be corrected in a GPS receiver is because of the Doppler
shift in the downlink carrier frequency. On site, the mathemaGician
was caught red-handedly. In the academics, he can get away with it.
However, in the industry, there is no room for mathemaGics and
fraudulence. He was once working in one of these ubiquitous wireless
(IEEE802.15.4 or blue tooth) startups in Norway. Now, he is in the
academics producing piles of bullshit. Go figure. <shrug>

> Whether
> there are any real experts in general relativity here, I am not
> competent to judge. And as I said, I'm only an occasional visitor.

Come on. You have called the antagonists to that little professor
from Norway nitwits already. We know where you stand despite being
one who is not capable of judging. There are just plenty of you
sheaples around who rely on others to think for themselves. <shrug>

By the way, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is
worshipped like a god among the self-styled physicists. To continue
to do so, they have to pay the likes such as Don Stockbauer the
fortune-teller to spread the lies. Being bombarded with so many lies,
rusty folks like yourself who only rely on others to think for
yourselves will eventually believe in those lies. <shrug>

hanson

unread,

Oct 4, 2012, 2:44:31 AM10/4/12

to

Don Stockbauer, drunk as ususal, said, while the Moon
was as full as he was, on Oct 1, 2012... 0631 PM:
>
||| Don said: "No need for any proof, totally self-evident."
>
based on his, Don's, earlier posts wherein
>
||| Don said: I actually think that you're discussing an
||| Don said: important topic. We are better than Einstein.
||| Don said: That Einstein. I can't stand the guy, OOOHHHH,
||| Don said: he makes me want to chew the bark off a tree.
||| Don said: I hate him. Einstein has trouble standing up
||| Don said: against the intellect of the current Global Brain.
||| Don said: Einstein is no match for the Global Brain,
||| Don said: thus he is ridiculed today. Einstein was a
||| Don said: motherfucking rapist. Einstein should be shot.
||| Don said: <http://tinyurl.com/Don-Stockbauer> [portrait]
>
and Stinky Stocky had a whole slew of folks going,
with "Koobee Wublee" being one of the few posters
who does know what's really going on.
>
Thanks for the laughs, though, especially to all the
Einstein Dingleberries who love to worship Albert's
sphincter and think Einstein was great for having been
a twice arrested wife beater:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 4, 2012, 8:07:56 AM10/4/12

to

On 04.10.2012 07:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 1, 11:09 pm, Jud Pewther <jpewt...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I've noticed that Paul B.
>> Andersen does have a very good grasp of it, and spends a lot of time
>> with the hopeless task of trying to correct the nitwits.
>
> That very small professor from the Trondheim University in Norway whom
> you hailed as a defender of the religion known as Special and General
> Relativity does not even understand the simple Galilean transform. It
> is so evident in his JAVA applet about lack of the twins’ paradox in
> which he played mathematical tricks on the parties involved in a
> transform. With you being very rusty, naturally, you are bedazzled by
> small professor andersen’s mathemagics. <shrug>

The mathemagics:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

>
> Oh, the very small professor once told me that why time dilation
> needed to be corrected in a GPS receiver is because of the Doppler
> shift in the downlink carrier frequency.

:-)

Koobee Wublee has repeated over and over that he thinks
the reason for the GR correction is that the frequencies
received by the receiver should be correct.

Here is what I once told him:
(Actually I have told him a number of times, to no avail,
as this posting of his demonstrates.)

http://tinyurl.com/czglxnb
From where I quote:
| Koobee Wublee wrote:
|> Let's see. The P-code chipping rate on board the satellite is
|> programmed to 10.22999999543MHz. The receiver just has to assume a
|> chipping rate of 10.23MHz ever with accuracy so much compromised to
|> lower the cost down to bare-bone. Both the P-code chipping rate on
|> board the satellite and the P-code chipping rate in the receiver do
|> not have to be adjusted ever. So, how does this 38uSec per day come
|> in? Do you not realize a 38uSec per day is very much different from
|> -4,4647E-10 (no units)?
|>I also would like to leave a homework assignment for you, our twisted
|> professor from Norway, on how the difference in 10.22999999543MHz
|> versus 10.23000000000MHz of P-code chipping rate would affect the
|> accuracy of GPS acquisition.
|
| Paul B. Andersen responded:
| The difference in the chipping rate is of course of no consequence,
| the Doppler shift at the receiver is vastly greater than this anyway.
| From whence did you get the idiotic idea that anybody would claim
| this small change in the chipping rate to be of any consequence?
| It is completely beside the point!
|
|_The reason why this shift has to be done is because of the SV clock!_
|
| Only one frequency standard is used at any time in the satellites.
| (there are three standards, the best of them is at any time used)
| This one frequency standard is used for _everything_ in
| the satellite, including the clock.
|
| The SV clock ticks out one second every 10230000 cycles from
| this standard. (a frequency synthesizer is obviously used).
|
| Now the correction is delta_f/f = -4.4647E-10, that means
| that the corrected frequency f' = (1 - 4.4647E-10)*f
| (1 - 4.4647E-10)*10.23000000000MHz = 10.22999999543MHz
|
| So what about the 38us?
| There are 86400 seconds in a day.
| 86400*4.4647E-10 sec = 385750.08E-10 sec = 38.575008E-6 ~= 38 us
|
| Got it?
|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Koobee Wublee wrote:
|> Speaking of the gravitational time dilation as predicted by GR, Mr.
|> Dual-Space's hypothesis championed by some John Polak-something, and
|> others, how would this relativistic effect affect the tuning of the
|> carrier frequencies, L1 (1.57542GHz) and L2 (1.2276GHz)? The answer
|> is none. You need to understand how engineers work. <shrug>
|
| Paul B. Andersen responded:
| This is completely beside the point.
|
| Anybody with the slightest knowledge of radio engineering will
| understand that the carrier frequencies received by the receivers
| are Doppler shifted order of magnitudes more than the minute
| GR correction.
| The satellites are moving!
| So what?
| Why did you think that this should be of any consequence?
| The bandwidths of the channels are 20.46 MHz, so the GR-correction
| and the much bigger Doppler shifts are small compared to
| the bandwidth.
|
| The only way GR comes into the GPS is in the correction of
| the frequency standard, which is necessary to keep the SV clocks
| in sync with GPS-time within 100 ns during each time the clock
| can be corrected from the ground (once a day).
|
| BOTTOM LINE:
| Without the GR-correction, the clocks would drift out of
| sync by 38us - hundreds of times more than can be tolerated -
| between each time the clocks are corrected from the ground.
|
| Got it?
| It shouldn't be hard to get unless you are a complete moron.
|
| And the receivers don't have to worry about the GR-correction!
| They can safely assume that the time reported by the satellite
| is correct. (Which it is - because of the GR-correction.)

> On site, the mathemaGician
> was caught red-handedly. In the academics, he can get away with it.
> However, in the industry, there is no room for mathemaGics and
> fraudulence. He was once working in one of these ubiquitous wireless
> (IEEE802.15.4 or blue tooth) startups in Norway. Now, he is in the
> academics producing piles of bullshit. Go figure. <shrug>

Still sore, Koobee? :-)

I can understand why.
I have caught quite a few of your many blunders, and I love it
when you give me an opportunity to remind you of them.
So please do.

Maybe a new round on stellar aberration? :-)

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

Alen

unread,

Oct 4, 2012, 10:54:30 AM10/4/12

to

Yes, I totally agree with what you say here.
In the beginning I didn't question Einstein's reputation,
since I supposed everyone knew what they were
talking about. But, especially recently, I came to
realise that Einstein had a capacity to be amazingly
cavalier and careless with fundamental concepts.
I guess everyone supposed this was a symptom of
the brilliance of his genius. But, sadly, as I now
realise, it was not!

Alen

Big Dog

unread,

Oct 4, 2012, 12:10:04 PM10/4/12

to

On 10/4/2012 9:54 AM, Alen wrote:
> On Oct 4, 12:06 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 7:56 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 2, 11:31 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> No need for any proof, totally self-evident.
>>
>>> Sorry, but that is the wildest exaggeration. Apart from
>>> anything else, it would be arrogance in a physicist to
>>> suppose that the greatest human ever would have to
>>> be a physicist
>>
>>> Alen
>>
>> But even among physicists, he was not greatest. On the contrary, he
>> was the terminator. He terminated rationality and introduced occult in
>> physics. Those who accepted his theory are more to blame but so far as
>> Einstein is concerned, he was a rot of which body of science quickly
>> got infected.
>
> Yes, I totally agree with what you say here.
> In the beginning I didn't question Einstein's reputation,
> since I supposed everyone knew what they were
> talking about. But, especially recently, I came to
> realise that Einstein had a capacity to be amazingly
> cavalier and careless with fundamental concepts.

What you call cavalier and careless, other physicists would say was
rather bold and carefully challenging.

You for example, insist that there is a philosophical notion of "now"
that must be the same for all observers, otherwise it has no meaning.
Einstein, on the other hand, said "Why should this notion be held sacred
and inviolable? Why can I not question whether this statement is
actually right? Suppose that this concept of 'now' has to be qualified
to be specific to observer? Why should this be considered destructive?"

You reveal a lot, Alen, in your passage above. First you saw no reason
to question Einstein's reputation, based on the statements of
scientists. But it's also clear that you never appreciated WHY he had
the reputation he did. Then when you started to look at what Einstein
actually proposed, you started to object to his challenging cherished
philosophical notions, and then your view of him dimmed. Has it not
occurred to you that the reason that he is respected is BECAUSE he
challenged cherished philosophical notions?

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 1:38:02 AM10/5/12

to

On Oct 4, 5:08 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 04.10.2012 07:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > That very small professor from the Trondheim University in Norway whom
> > you hailed as a defender of the religion known as Special and General
> > Relativity does not even understand the simple Galilean transform. It
> > is so evident in his JAVA applet about lack of the twins paradox in
> > which he played mathematical tricks on the parties involved in a
> > transform. With you being very rusty, naturally, you are bedazzled by
> > small professor andersen s mathemagics. <shrug>
>
> The mathemagics: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

Yes, that piece of mathemagics. Daryl McCullough made the same
mathemaGic trick, but he was called and seemed to have realized his
own mistake. Since the very small professor has shown his face in
person, we will continue to observer how small the small professor
Andersen really is. <shrug>

> > Oh, the very small professor once told me that why time dilation
> > needed to be corrected in a GPS receiver is because of the Doppler
> > shift in the downlink carrier frequency.
>
> :-)

:-) High five Koobee Wublee, little professor? <shrug>

> Koobee Wublee has repeated over and over that he thinks
> the reason for the GR correction is that the frequencies
> received by the receiver should be correct.

This is totally false. Koobee Wublee does not believe any GR
correction is necessary in the GPS design. <shrug>

> Here is what I once told him:
> (Actually I have told him a number of times, to no avail,
> as this posting of his demonstrates.)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/czglxnb
> From where I quote:
> | Koobee Wublee wrote:
> |> Let's see. The P-code chipping rate on board the satellite is
> |> programmed to 10.22999999543MHz. The receiver just has to assume a
> |> chipping rate of 10.23MHz ever with accuracy so much compromised to
> |> lower the cost down to bare-bone. Both the P-code chipping rate on
> |> board the satellite and the P-code chipping rate in the receiver do
> |> not have to be adjusted ever. So, how does this 38uSec per day come
> |> in? Do you not realize a 38uSec per day is very much different from
> |> -4,4647E-10 (no units)?
> |>I also would like to leave a homework assignment for you, our twisted
> |> professor from Norway, on how the difference in 10.22999999543MHz
> |> versus 10.23000000000MHz of P-code chipping rate would affect the
> |> accuracy of GPS acquisition.

Yes, this was indeed a reply to the little professor andersen’s
previous post on why he thought GR effect should be taken into account
was because of the Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies. The
little professor can whine, lie, and twist stories around,

> [snipped crap that was not said by Koobee Wublee]

> > On site, the mathemaGician
> > was caught red-handedly. In the academics, he can get away with it.
> > However, in the industry, there is no room for mathemaGics and
> > fraudulence. He was once working in one of these ubiquitous wireless
> > (IEEE802.15.4 or blue tooth) startups in Norway. Now, he is in the
> > academics producing piles of bullshit. Go figure. <shrug>
>
> Still sore, Koobee? :-)

Does it look like it, little professor? :-) <shrug>

> I can understand why.

Koobee Wublee can also understand why the little professor cannot
survive in the industry with such stupid comment like that about the
Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies. <shrug>

> I have caught quite a few of your many blunders, and I love it
> when you give me an opportunity to remind you of them.
> So please do.

OK, go ahead and lay out all of little professor’s mathemaGic tricks.
Should Koobee Wublee hold His breath? <shrug>

> Maybe a new round on stellar aberration? :-)

Oh, that was another blunder by the little professor andersen. Didn’t
the little professor claim that the light of incidence at the receiver
did not depend on the source? An example of moving cloud dropping
rain on the little professor can easily prove him wrong. :-) <shrug>

We can see why the little professor cannot make it in the industries
and find a home that allows him to cultivate his own bullshit in total
blossom. God have mercy on his students. <shrug>

hanis...@gmail.com

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 2:26:02 AM10/5/12

to

Illuminator!

kenseto

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 9:48:42 AM10/5/12

to

Paul Andersen said:
From the cosmic muon's point of view the earth is moving close to c
toward it.
Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the earth, that
would mean that the earth must move in different directions
simultaneously to meet these zillions of muons and that
would cause it to explode. Thank Godit didn't. The other
explanation is that Andersen's understanding of relativity
is kind of faulty....or the SR interpretation of the muon's
point of view is a bunch of Bull.

What do you think?????

Alen

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 10:13:24 AM10/5/12

to

> > Alen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You say Einstein 'challenged cherished philosophical
notions'.

I say he merely irresponsibly and reprehensibly destroyed
fundamental concepts.

But they are not destroyed, because of those of us who
refuse to go along with it.

Alen

Big Dog

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 10:23:45 AM10/5/12

to

On 10/5/2012 9:13 AM, Alen wrote:

>>
>>> I guess everyone supposed this was a symptom of
>>> the brilliance of his genius. But, sadly, as I now
>>> realise, it was not!
>>
>>> Alen- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You say Einstein 'challenged cherished philosophical
> notions'.
>
> I say he merely irresponsibly and reprehensibly destroyed
> fundamental concepts.

What about "fundamental concepts" -- ANY of them -- makes them sacred
and inviolable? ALL concepts are human constructions, artifices built to
attempt mimicry of nature. None of them are guaranteed to be accurate.

So you say that challenging these "fundamental concepts" is
"irresponsible" and "reprehensible". Why? What are the imagined bad
outcomes from challenging them? Why is maintaining fundamental concepts
an act of responsibility and virtue?

>
> But they are not destroyed, because of those of us who
> refuse to go along with it.
>

Illustrating my point exactly. Mental constructs, including these
"fundamental concepts" cannot be destroyed because they are simply
matters of *choice*. If you *choose* not to question them, or feel dizzy
and disoriented and icky when they are questioned, then you won't do it.

There is nothing sacred about a physical concept. There are those that
seem to work better (in the sense that they match observation better),
and those that don't. For some people, that difference is not enough to
warrant challenging the physical concept, and then they CHOOSE not to do
that. Physicists, on the other hand, see no sacredness to physical
concepts and place priority on the practical assessment of how well they
work.

Your priorities, Alen, are just different than physicists'.

Alen

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 10:33:50 AM10/5/12

to

On Oct 6, 12:23 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 9:13 AM, Alen wrote:

> >>> I guess everyone supposed this was a symptom of
> >>> the brilliance of his genius. But, sadly, as I now
> >>> realise, it was not!
>
> >>> Alen- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You say Einstein 'challenged cherished philosophical
> > notions'.
>
> > I say he merely irresponsibly and reprehensibly destroyed
> > fundamental concepts.
>
> What about "fundamental concepts" -- ANY of them -- makes them sacred
> and inviolable? ALL concepts are human constructions, artifices built to
> attempt mimicry of nature. None of them are guaranteed to be accurate.
>
> So you say that challenging these "fundamental concepts" is
> "irresponsible" and "reprehensible". Why? What are the imagined bad
> outcomes from challenging them? Why is maintaining fundamental concepts
> an act of responsibility and virtue?

See, for example, if you can figure out what would
be the 'imagined' bad outcome of 'challenging' the
word IS

>
> > But they are not destroyed, because of those of us who
> > refuse to go along with it.
>
> Illustrating my point exactly. Mental constructs, including these
> "fundamental concepts" cannot be destroyed because they are simply
> matters of *choice*. If you *choose* not to question them, or feel dizzy
> and disoriented and icky when they are questioned, then you won't do it.
>
> There is nothing sacred about a physical concept. There are those that
> seem to work better (in the sense that they match observation better),
> and those that don't. For some people, that difference is not enough to
> warrant challenging the physical concept, and then they CHOOSE not to do
> that. Physicists, on the other hand, see no sacredness to physical
> concepts and place priority on the practical assessment of how well they
> work.
>

> Your priorities, Alen, are just different than physicists'.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

In that case I must thank the Lord that
so many of us are not physicists! :)

Alen

Big Dog

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 11:28:00 AM10/5/12

to

On 10/5/2012 9:33 AM, Alen wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:23 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 9:13 AM, Alen wrote:
>
>>>>> I guess everyone supposed this was a symptom of
>>>>> the brilliance of his genius. But, sadly, as I now
>>>>> realise, it was not!
>>
>>>>> Alen- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> You say Einstein 'challenged cherished philosophical
>>> notions'.
>>
>>> I say he merely irresponsibly and reprehensibly destroyed
>>> fundamental concepts.
>>
>> What about "fundamental concepts" -- ANY of them -- makes them sacred
>> and inviolable? ALL concepts are human constructions, artifices built to
>> attempt mimicry of nature. None of them are guaranteed to be accurate.
>>
>> So you say that challenging these "fundamental concepts" is
>> "irresponsible" and "reprehensible". Why? What are the imagined bad
>> outcomes from challenging them? Why is maintaining fundamental concepts
>> an act of responsibility and virtue?
>
> See, for example, if you can figure out what would
> be the 'imagined' bad outcome of 'challenging' the
> word IS

I don't see a problem. For YOU, the word ONLY has meaning if it conveys
an absolute simultaneity and completely loses meaning if absolute
simultaneity isn't entrained with the word.

"Is" is a mental concept, and you *artificially* attach to that concept
the additional entrained concept of absolute simultaneity. Einstein
said, and I agree, that "IS" is a perfectly coherent concept WITHOUT
attachment of absolute simultaneity. You can't make that step.

>
>>
>>> But they are not destroyed, because of those of us who
>>> refuse to go along with it.
>>
>> Illustrating my point exactly. Mental constructs, including these
>> "fundamental concepts" cannot be destroyed because they are simply
>> matters of *choice*. If you *choose* not to question them, or feel dizzy
>> and disoriented and icky when they are questioned, then you won't do it.
>>
>> There is nothing sacred about a physical concept. There are those that
>> seem to work better (in the sense that they match observation better),
>> and those that don't. For some people, that difference is not enough to
>> warrant challenging the physical concept, and then they CHOOSE not to do
>> that. Physicists, on the other hand, see no sacredness to physical
>> concepts and place priority on the practical assessment of how well they
>> work.
>>
>> Your priorities, Alen, are just different than physicists'.
>

> In that case I must thank the Lord that
> so many of us are not physicists! :)

If you like. There are those who are proud of being inflexible.

>
> Alen
>

Vilas Tamhane

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 12:09:40 PM10/5/12

to

Your line of thinking or for that matter this line of thinking is best
explained by Alfonso. According to him scientists have abandoned
reason, as a matter of philosophy, to support their theories. So
according to this line of thinking what you say is correct. However,
there are some like me who believe that such a philosophy takes
science into realm of occult in which reason is not applied. This is
not only dangerous but it is a criminal line of thinking.

Big Dog

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 2:36:00 PM10/5/12

to

On 10/5/2012 11:09 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>>
>> Illustrating my point exactly. Mental constructs, including these
>> "fundamental concepts" cannot be destroyed because they are simply
>> matters of *choice*. If you *choose* not to question them, or feel dizzy
>> and disoriented and icky when they are questioned, then you won't do it.
>>
>> There is nothing sacred about a physical concept. There are those that
>> seem to work better (in the sense that they match observation better),
>> and those that don't. For some people, that difference is not enough to
>> warrant challenging the physical concept, and then they CHOOSE not to do
>> that. Physicists, on the other hand, see no sacredness to physical
>> concepts and place priority on the practical assessment of how well they
>> work.
>>
>> Your priorities, Alen, are just different than physicists'.
>
> Your line of thinking or for that matter this line of thinking is best
> explained by Alfonso. According to him scientists have abandoned
> reason, as a matter of philosophy, to support their theories. So
> according to this line of thinking what you say is correct. However,
> there are some like me who believe that such a philosophy takes
> science into realm of occult in which reason is not applied. This is
> not only dangerous but it is a criminal line of thinking.
>

I of course disagree. It is a hallmark of you, Alfonso, and Alen that
you believe that questioning any "fundamental concept" is tantamount to
abandoning reason, and that anyone who proposes something OTHER THAN
those "fundamental concepts" has veered into unthinking insanity. It is
the mentality that "Anything that is other than classical physics is
irrational, because only classical physics can be rational."

You and I have much different ideas of what constitutes rationality. To
me, deductive reasoning starts with a presumed premise, and develops
those premises by logic into conclusions. Hallmarks of deductive
reasoning is internal consistency and the lack of internal
contradictions, and the absence of claims that cannot be deduced from
the premises.

You, on the other hand, say that rationality MUST ALWAYS involve an
appeal to common experience and the generalization of common experiences
to apply even outside those common experiences -- an extrapolation
called "common sense". The problem, you see, is that insisting on that
element removes all possibilities of complete surprises -- those things
that common sense would have told you are flat-out impossible. By
declaring that thinking is only rational if no out-and-out surprises can
be entertained, then this is officially the closing of the mind. Nature
is FULL of surprises, exhibiting features that our previous thinking
about nature would say is simply impossible. You reject any Nature that
would do that to you.

Henry Wilson

unread,

Oct 5, 2012, 9:36:38 PM10/5/12

to

On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 11:31:55 UTC+10, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> No need for any proof, totally self-evident.

What a load of crap!
All Einstein did was plagiarize LET and send physics up the wrong creek.

Lorentz was ten times brighter than Einstein ...but even he was wrong.

Newton was the greatest, and Maxwell would probably come second.

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,

Oct 6, 2012, 9:18:22 AM10/6/12

to

"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0a77657f-d04b-4f96...@googlegroups.com...

Maxwell was nothing more than a schoolmarm who took the

work of Faraday, Ampere and Gauss and tried to fit it to

non-existent aether. In electromagnetics Faraday is second to

Newton and in wave theory Doppler is second only to Huyghens.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 6, 2012, 9:37:25 AM10/6/12

to

On 05.10.2012 07:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 4, 5:08 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> On 04.10.2012 07:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> That very small professor from the Trondheim University in Norway whom
>>> you hailed as a defender of the religion known as Special and General
>>> Relativity does not even understand the simple Galilean transform. It
>>> is so evident in his JAVA applet about lack of the twins paradox in
>>> which he played mathematical tricks on the parties involved in a
>>> transform. With you being very rusty, naturally, you are bedazzled by
>>> small professor andersen s mathemagics. <shrug>
>>
>> The mathemagics:

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

Behold Koobee Wublee's lethal arguments for why the above is wrong:

> Yes, that piece of mathemagics. Daryl McCullough made the same
> mathemaGic trick, but he was called and seemed to have realized his
> own mistake. Since the very small professor has shown his face in
> person, we will continue to observer how small the small professor
> Andersen really is. <shrug>

Koobee sure knows how to point out mathematical errors! :-)

> Yes, this was indeed a reply to the little professor andersenï¿½s

> previous post on why he thought GR effect should be taken into account
> was because of the Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies. The
> little professor can whine, lie, and twist stories around,

Apropos lie, and twist stories around:

Here is the previous post which you responded to.
http://tinyurl.com/czglxnb
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/icd200cw1234.pdf
|
| I quote section 3.3.1.1 from this document:
| <<
| 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.
| The L-band signals shall be contained within two 20.46-MHz bands
| centred about L1 and L2. The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2
| signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source
| within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears
| to an observer on the ground--is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
| and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in
| the SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
| The clock rates are offset by delta_f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent
| to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by
| a delta_f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.22999999543 MHz.
| The nominal carrier frequencies (fo) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and
| 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively.
| >>
|
| There is nothing to discuss. It is an indisputable fact that
| the -4.4647E-10 correction calculated by Ahsby is built into
| each and every GPS-satellite, which prove that the GPS works
| with the corrections introduced by GR.

Doesn't say much about the Doppler shift of the carrier
there, does it? :-)

Your response to "the previous post" makes it clear that you,
Koobee Wublee, thought, and possibly still think, that
the reason why the designers of the GPS included
the GR correction in the clock rates is that the frequencies

received by the receiver should be correct.

Which is a pretty stupid belief.

>> [snipped crap that was not said by Koobee Wublee]

I note with interest that you found it necessary to snip
what I actually said, which was:

So my dear Koobee Wublee, it is thoroughly documented that it
is a blatant lie that I once told you

"that why time dilation needed to be corrected in a GPS receiver
is because of the Doppler shift in the downlink carrier frequency."

You are caught red-handedly.
Did you really think you could escape by snipping it? :-)

>>> On site, the mathemaGician
>>> was caught red-handedly. In the academics, he can get away with it.
>>> However, in the industry, there is no room for mathemaGics and
>>> fraudulence. He was once working in one of these ubiquitous wireless
>>> (IEEE802.15.4 or blue tooth) startups in Norway. Now, he is in the
>>> academics producing piles of bullshit. Go figure. <shrug>
>>
>> Still sore, Koobee? :-)
>
> Does it look like it, little professor? :-) <shrug>

Yes, it looks very much so. :-O>

>
>> I can understand why.
>
> Koobee Wublee can also understand why the little professor cannot
> survive in the industry with such stupid comment like that about the
> Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies. <shrug>
>
>> I have caught quite a few of your many blunders, and I love it
>> when you give me an opportunity to remind you of them.
>> So please do.
>

> OK, go ahead and lay out all of little professorï¿½s mathemaGic tricks.

> Should Koobee Wublee hold His breath? <shrug>
>
>> Maybe a new round on stellar aberration? :-)
>

> Oh, that was another blunder by the little professor andersen. Didnï¿½t

> the little professor claim that the light of incidence at the receiver
> did not depend on the source? An example of moving cloud dropping
> rain on the little professor can easily prove him wrong. :-) <shrug>

Thanks for the opportunity. :-)

I will simply quote the last posting of mine in our discussion
on stellar aberration back in December 2008:

This is the paper that started the discussion:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|Koobee Wublee wrote:
|> On Dec 12, 4:28 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
|>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
|>>> We are talking about aberration and not parallax. It looks like you
|>>> are utterly confused between aberration and parallax. Way to go,
|>>> professor.
|>>> You want to go back and study up on aberration before coming back
|>>> to get your ass spanked?
|>>
|>> Looking for a way out without loosing face,
|>> and _this_ was the best you could do?
|>
|> Not at all. <shrug>
|>
|>> There is no way out.
|>
|> That is right. You ought to remember that. <shrug>
|>
|>> You have yet again made a fool of yourself.
|>
|> I am not the one who confuses parallax with aberration. <shrug> You
|> are.
|>
|>> I can't resist the temptation to rub it in:
|>
|> It only rubs on yourself. You are a man of no integrity. You are a
|> small man. <shrug>
|>
|>> Koobe Wublee thinks the following paper shows that I am
|>> "utterly confused between aberration and parallax".
|>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
|
| See Koobe Wublee whining:
|
|>
|> That is very correct. <shrug>
|>
|>> Hilarious, no?
|>
|> I can only laugh at the so-called professor Andersen. <shrug>
|>
|>> Can't he even read, or doesn't he know the difference
|>> between stellar parallax and stellar aberration?
|>
|> So, Paul Andersen is describing himself. <shrug>
|>
|>Please pick up all your shit 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.
|
| Hilarious, no?
|
|
| It is an experimentally proven fact that the velocity of
| the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
|
| But if you wish to make an even bigger fool of yourself,
| keep insisting what is experimentally proven to be wrong.

I think you just made an even bigger fool of yourself! :-)

For lurkers:
If you wonder why it is an indisputable fact that the velocity of
the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration, this is why:
The aberration of both stars in a binary is exactly the same,
even if the transverse velocities of the components may be very
high in opposite directions.

>
> We can see why the little professor cannot make it in the industries
> and find a home that allows him to cultivate his own bullshit in total
> blossom. God have mercy on his students. <shrug>

Still sore, Koobee?
I can understand why! :-)

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,

Oct 6, 2012, 6:01:05 PM10/6/12

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message news:k4pc6m$k9a$1...@news.albasani.net...

| It is an experimentally proven fact that the velocity of
| the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration.

============================================

It is a proven fact that Andersen is a fucking liar.

http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/DeriveMC2.htm

Henry Wilson

unread,

Oct 6, 2012, 9:56:19 PM10/6/12

to

On Saturday, 6 October 2012 23:18:36 UTC+10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0a77657f-d04b-4f96...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> On
> Tuesday, 2 October 2012 11:31:55 UTC+10, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > No
> need for any proof, totally self-evident.
>
> What a load of crap!
> All
> Einstein did was plagiarize LET and send physics up the wrong
> creek.
>
> Lorentz was ten times brighter than Einstein ...but even he was
> wrong.
>
> Newton was the greatest, and Maxwell would probably come
> second.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Maxwell was nothing more than a schoolmarm who took
> the
>
> work of Faraday, Ampere and Gauss and tried to fit it to
>
>
> non-existent aether. In electromagnetics Faraday is second
> to
>
> Newton and in wave theory Doppler is second only to
> Huyghens.

I think Maxwell's contribution to thermodynamics was his main achievement,
not his EM wave stuff.

John Gogo

unread,

Oct 6, 2012, 10:15:02 PM10/6/12

to

On Oct 6, 8:18 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@October2012.org> wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0a77657f-d04b-4f96...@googlegroups.com...

Faraday was uneducated or self taught.

Peter Webb

unread,

Oct 6, 2012, 11:45:48 PM10/6/12

to

This is totally false. Koobee Wublee does not believe any GR
correction is necessary in the GPS design. <shrug>

_____________________________________________________________
1. Koobee Wublee may not believe that GR correction is necessary for GPS,
but that is because he (you) are wrong,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity provides an
explanation. You should learn some basic physics before talking about it.

2. This affectation you have of referring to yourself in the third person is
often interpreted as a sign of mental illness. Are you deliberately trying
to cultivate an image of mental instability? If not, why do you this? Are
you genuinely mentally ill, with a proper medical diagnosis?

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 1:34:49 AM10/7/12

to

"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:36e10e2e-409d-4b8a...@googlegroups.com...

Yeah, well, it’s always Maxwell’s EM equations that get shouted about

in this newsgroup and are plastered all over the internet and they are

not Maxwell’s. It’s the fucking schoolmarms that are to blame.

Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach. I never met a schoolmarm

yet that didn’t love the sound of its own voice.

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 1:53:54 AM10/7/12

to

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k4qttl$paf$1...@news.albasani.net...

==================================================

You, Webb, should learn some basic mathematics before spewing

wackypedia hype. Do you really believe the advance of perihelion

of Mercury was ever measured to an accuracy of 43/(415*360*3600)=

8.0E-08 arc seconds per century by Einstein with a slide rule?

He had no telescope or computer. Are you deliberately trying
to cultivate an image of mental instability, you fucking idiot? If not, why

do you this, you stupid cunt? Are you genuinely mentally ill, with a proper

medical diagnosis, you psychotic bastard?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Peter Webb

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 2:53:43 AM10/7/12

to

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:%N8cs.246817$x81.1...@fx06.am4...

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4qttl$paf$1...@news.albasani.net...

This is totally false. Koobee Wublee does not believe any GR
correction is necessary in the GPS design. <shrug>

_____________________________________________________________
1. Koobee Wublee may not believe that GR correction is necessary for GPS,
but that is because he (you) are wrong,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity provides an
explanation. You should learn some basic physics before talking about it.

2. This affectation you have of referring to yourself in the third person is
often interpreted as a sign of mental illness. Are you deliberately trying
to cultivate an image of mental instability? If not, why do you this? Are
you genuinely mentally ill, with a proper medical diagnosis?

==================================================
You, Webb, should learn some basic mathematics before spewing
wackypedia hype. Do you really believe the advance of perihelion
of Mercury was ever measured to an accuracy of 43/(415*360*3600)=
8.0E-08 arc seconds per century by Einstein with a slide rule?

_______________________________________________
No. Einstein never measured this for himself.

He had no telescope or computer. Are you deliberately trying
to cultivate an image of mental instability, you fucking idiot? If not, why
do you this, you stupid cunt? Are you genuinely mentally ill, with a proper
medical diagnosis, you psychotic bastard?
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

______________________________________________________
Nobody claimed Einstein had a computer or telescope. You seem unable to
follow a conversation.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 3:33:22 AM10/7/12

to

On Oct 6, 6:37 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 05.10.2012 07:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > On Oct 4, 5:08 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >> On 04.10.2012 07:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> >>> That very small professor from the Trondheim University in Norway whom
> >>> you hailed as a defender of the religion known as Special and General
> >>> Relativity does not even understand the simple Galilean transform. It
> >>> is so evident in his JAVA applet about lack of the twins paradox in
> >>> which he played mathematical tricks on the parties involved in a
> >>> transform. With you being very rusty, naturally, you are bedazzled by
> >>> small professor andersen s mathemagics. <shrug>
>
> >> The mathemagics:
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

Yes, that mathemagics. <shrug>

> Behold Koobee Wublee's lethal arguments for why the above is wrong:

It was done before. <shrug>

> > Yes, that piece of mathemagics. Daryl McCullough made the same
> > mathemaGic trick, but he was called and seemed to have realized his
> > own mistake. Since the very small professor has shown his face in
> > person, we will continue to observer how small the small professor
> > Andersen really is. <shrug>
>
> Koobee sure knows how to point out mathematical errors! :-)

You bet! :-) <shrug>

Remember this?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f9c3288cbc93ca08

> > Yes, this was indeed a reply to the little professor andersen’s

That was what you said earlier in some other thread. <shrug>

Well, Koobee Wublee did not document all these postings as well as you
do. In some thread, you budged in one day and babbling about the real
reason why the GPS frequency had to be corrected was because of the
carrier frequency shift. <shrug>

> >>> On site, the mathemaGician
> >>> was caught red-handedly. In the academics, he can get away with it.
> >>> However, in the industry, there is no room for mathemaGics and
> >>> fraudulence. He was once working in one of these ubiquitous wireless
> >>> (IEEE802.15.4 or blue tooth) startups in Norway. Now, he is in the
> >>> academics producing piles of bullshit. Go figure. <shrug>
>
> >> Still sore, Koobee? :-)
>
> > Does it look like it, little professor? :-) <shrug>
>
> Yes, it looks very much so. :-O>

<shrug>

> >> I can understand why.
>
> > Koobee Wublee can also understand why the little professor cannot
> > survive in the industry with such stupid comment like that about the
> > Doppler shift in the carrier frequencies. <shrug>
>
> >> I have caught quite a few of your many blunders, and I love it
> >> when you give me an opportunity to remind you of them.
> >> So please do.
>

> > OK, go ahead and lay out all of little professor’s mathemaGic tricks.

> > Should Koobee Wublee hold His breath? <shrug>
>
> >> Maybe a new round on stellar aberration? :-)
>

> > Oh, that was another blunder by the little professor andersen. Didn’t

> > the little professor claim that the light of incidence at the receiver
> > did not depend on the source? An example of moving cloud dropping
> > rain on the little professor can easily prove him wrong. :-) <shrug>
>
> Thanks for the opportunity. :-)

You are welcome! Getting a compliment from the little professor
nowadays is immensely rare. <shrug>

> I will simply quote the last posting of mine in our discussion
> on stellar aberration back in December 2008:

Glad someone is keeping good documentations for personal reasons.
<shrug>

How is that again? <shrug>

> For lurkers:
> If you wonder why it is an indisputable fact that the velocity of
> the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration, this is why:
> The aberration of both stars in a binary is exactly the same,
> even if the transverse velocities of the components may be very
> high in opposite directions.

And you have to toss out the principle of relativity away. That makes
you a clown to apply the principle of relativity in one case and not
the others. For your lack of information, all laws of physics have to
be the same everywhere and everywhen. <shrug>

> > We can see why the little professor cannot make it in the industries
> > and find a home that allows him to cultivate his own bullshit in total
> > blossom. God have mercy on his students. <shrug>
>
> Still sore, Koobee?

This sore thing is getting old. <yawn>

What else are you bitching about again? <shrug>

It looks like we still have a lot of disagreement. Let’s discuss one
at time, shall we? GPS sounds like a good one. Does the little
professor still believe in GR playing a role in GPS? Koobee Wublee
thoroughly explained why not below. <shrug>

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5847920d8e567050

If you are afraid to go back to GPS, Koobee Wublee understands your
fear. You can go back to aberration and completely make another
nincompoop out of yourself again. Koobee Wublee had enough of seeing
the little professor putting his foot in his mouth for the n’th time.
<shrug>

Stop trembling! Or we can discuss the Cosmological Constant if you
feel more comfortable. <shrug>

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 3:34:23 AM10/7/12