Re: Einstein - Greatest Human to have ever existed.

[Koobee Wublee]

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]

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]

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/

[Koobee Wublee]

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>

[Paul B. Andersen]

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 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,

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 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. :-)

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]

"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

 

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

[Peter Webb]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k4r8tq$as$1...@news.albasani.net...

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

 

Now we’ve established GR written by Einstein did NOT say anything

about the advance of perihelion of Mercury or the Moon or anything

else, why are you citing wackypedia that claims he did, you lying shit?

Never mind what I seem like, Webb, I’m asking you whether YOU are

mentally ill or just pretending to be, as you are the ridiculous cretin

citing wackypedia. You should learn some basic arithmetic before

talking about it.

Why haven’t answered my question? 

[hanson]

Einstein Dingleberry "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Koobee Wublee does not believe any GR
> correction is necessary in the GPS design. <shrug>
>

"Peter Webb" the Einstein Dingleberry wrote:
> 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. [edite for clarity]
> Webb's affectation to be an Einstein Dingleberry is a sign
> of mental illness. Are you, ED Webb, deliberately trying

> to cultivate an image of mental instability? If not, why do

> you, Webb, dou this? Are you, Dingleberry Webb, genuinely

> mentally ill, with a proper medical diagnosis?
>

hanson wrote:
Webb, old chum, good to hear from you, and I am sorry
to hear about your mental state due to your worshipping
of Albert's sphincter. In your religious fervor, fixation &
obsession about Einstein you, of course, have not & do
not wanna hear that
_____ Einstein himself was a Relativity denier ______
See why and how below.
>
But ED Webb, listen. Worse than that is that you are so
far gone that you don't even realize in your worship of
Albert's sphincter, that any NORMAL high school student
or engineer has gleaned, for this particular situation, in 1
fell swoop, in ONE SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian
ways, and seen that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... km drift /day ----
>
where m_e = mass of earth and h being the Space vehicle
height above the earth surface, which is corrected by standard
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg>
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
No sales literature of any manufacturer that makes GPS
involved items ever mentions the use of SR or GR.
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| --------- GPS was in operation LONG before... ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
>
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
.. and here in his own words is why

___ Einstein himself was a SR/GR Relativity denier ____

Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."

|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Take care, Webb, you sorry sod. But thanks for the
laughs... ahahaha... ahahaahahanson

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:806aaaab-c1b5-4c70...@r8g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

______________________________________________________________
No, I didn't. I checked - its easily forgettable. Its one of those posts
where you have no physics content but instead complain that everybody else
is wrong about Relativity without giving reasons.

Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
inconsistencies? No? That's because of two reasons. Firstly, SR has no
internal inconsistencies. Secondly, you know nothing about physics.

Why do you post to physics newsgroups when you obviously know zero physics?
Because you are an idiot?

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

> > 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

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.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k4tk38$rmc$1...@news.albasani.net...

Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
inconsistencies?

 

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

Yes, you fucking moron.

t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v)

tB-tA  = rAB/(c-v)

t’A-tB = tB-tA.

 

ref:

 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

 

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn’t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference,

and second you have to have your head up your arse not to be able

to see 1/(5-3) = 0.5 does not equal 1/(5+3) = 0.125

but of course you DO have your head up your arse.

The inconsistency is

we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A,

imbecile.

Einstein – dumbest bastard to have ever existed (after Webb).

[Peter Webb]

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>

wrote in message news:tTscs.220303$jS5....@fx27.am4...

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tk38$rmc$1...@news.albasani.net...



Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
inconsistencies?

==============================================
Yes, you fucking moron.

t�A-tB = rAB/(c+v)
tB-tA = rAB/(c-v)
t�A-tB = tB-tA.

ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn�t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference,

and second you have to have your head up your arse not to be able
to see 1/(5-3) = 0.5 does not equal 1/(5+3) = 0.125
but of course you DO have your head up your arse.
The inconsistency is

we establish by definition that the �time� required by light to travel from
A to B equals the �time� it requires to travel from B to A,
imbecile.
Einstein � dumbest bastard to have ever existed (after Webb).

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

_________________________________________________________________________
Couple of basic errors. A definition cannot be an inconsistency in physics;
definitions are simply the meanings we give words in the English language.
If you think that the definition itself leads to an inconsistency in
physics, you need to demonstrate this. Second basic error is that the
equation above does not refer to an object moving at c+v in any frame of
reference. It refers to closing speeds measured in a third frame of
reference. These can be higher than c. You obviously don't know what the
equation represents, because you obviously know nothing about physics. Which
does raise the question of why you not only read physics newsgroups, but
also decide to use them as a forum for displaying your ignorance.

[Peter Webb]

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>

wrote in message news:qJacs.210118$XZ2.1...@fx10.am4...

_________________________________________________
No, we established that Einstein did not (as far as either of us know) own a
computer or a telescope. He *did* say things about the perihelion of
Mercury, as any web page on GR will tell you. Do you know nothing at all
about GR?

why are you citing wackypedia that claims he did, you lying shit?

_________________________________________________
I am quoting Wikipedia because it explained the role of GR in GPS; the
poster seemed to think that GR adjustments are not made in the GPS system.
They are. He really needs to learn some very basic physics. And so do you.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k4tq08$ptt$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:tTscs.220303$jS5....@fx27.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tk38$rmc$1...@news.albasani.net...



Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
inconsistencies?

==============================================
Yes, you fucking moron.

t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v)
tB-tA  = rAB/(c-v)
t’A-tB = tB-tA.

ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn’t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference,

and second you have to have your head up your arse not to be able
to see 1/(5-3) = 0.5 does not equal 1/(5+3) = 0.125
but of course you DO have your head up your arse.
The inconsistency is

we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from
A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A,
imbecile.
Einstein – dumbest bastard to have ever existed (after Webb).

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

_________________________________________________________________________
Couple of basic errors. A definition cannot be an inconsistency in physics;

 

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

I didn’t expect you to admit you are a stupid cunt, Webb, dumbfucks

like you never do.

Just because the liar Einstein calls his inconsistent third postulate a

definition doesn’t make it a definition, and it is inconsistent because

rAB/(c-v) does not equal rAB/(c+v) and no wishful thinking can make

it so, you fucking imbecile. 

 

Your question was answered, you useless squirming wanker, the “couple

of basic errors” are all Einstein’s and there are many more than a couple.

 

“In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.”

 

and in the second place it is clear his equations are NOT linear, but that’s way beyond your shit-filled head’s understanding.

 

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn’t exist at all since it is claimed that the
speed of light is the same in all frames of reference and c+v, c-v are

the measured speeds of light in one of them, you clueless cunt!

Fuck off and die, you are an arsehole spewing your religious

myths and this is science forum.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k4tqbu$qpu$1...@news.albasani.net...

There are no GR adjustments in my cell phone, you fucking liar,

and it says I’m currently on the other side of the street 15 metres

away. ALL computation is done in my phone and there are millions

just like it without any atomic clocks. You really need to learn some

basic honesty, you fucking liar.

Are you deliberately trying to cultivate an image of mental instability,

you fucking LYING idiot? If not, why do you this, you stupid cunt?

[Peter Webb]

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>

wrote in message news:wrucs.377575$4z5.3...@fx08.am4...

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tq08$ptt$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:tTscs.220303$jS5....@fx27.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tk38$rmc$1...@news.albasani.net...



Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
inconsistencies?

==============================================
Yes, you fucking moron.

t�A-tB = rAB/(c+v)
tB-tA = rAB/(c-v)
t�A-tB = tB-tA.

ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn�t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference,

and second you have to have your head up your arse not to be able
to see 1/(5-3) = 0.5 does not equal 1/(5+3) = 0.125
but of course you DO have your head up your arse.
The inconsistency is

we establish by definition that the �time� required by light to travel from
A to B equals the �time� it requires to travel from B to A,
imbecile.
Einstein � dumbest bastard to have ever existed (after Webb).

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

_________________________________________________________________________
Couple of basic errors. A definition cannot be an inconsistency in physics;

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

I didn�t expect you to admit you are a stupid cunt, Webb, dumbfucks

like you never do.
Just because the liar Einstein calls his inconsistent third postulate a

definition doesn�t make it a definition, and it is inconsistent because

rAB/(c-v) does not equal rAB/(c+v) and no wishful thinking can make
it so, you fucking imbecile.

Your question was answered, you useless squirming wanker, the �couple
of basic errors� are all Einstein�s and there are many more than a couple.

�In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.�

and in the second place it is clear his equations are NOT linear, but that�s
way beyond your shit-filled head�s understanding.
____________________________________________
Actually, they are linear transformations, specifically rotations. A point
made more clear by the reformulation due to Minkowski. You should learn some
basic physics.

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn�t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference and c+v, c-v are
the measured speeds of light in one of them, you clueless cunt!

___________________________________________________
No, that's not the claim made, and nor does it appear on the page you
referenced. It is in fact an extract from a paper by Einstein where he
calculates closing speeds, not the speed of light in a reference frame. I
can only repeat the advice I have given before, which is that you should
learn some basic physics before posting to a physics newsgroup - you just
look stupid with the basic errors you make (such as conflating closing
speeds and the speed of light in an inertial reference frame, or not knowing
that the Lorentz transformations are linear transformations of the plane).

HTH

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k4tt50$dr$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:wrucs.377575$4z5.3...@fx08.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tq08$ptt$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:tTscs.220303$jS5....@fx27.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tk38$rmc$1...@news.albasani.net...



Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
inconsistencies?

==============================================
Yes, you fucking moron.

t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v)
tB-tA  = rAB/(c-v)
t’A-tB = tB-tA.

ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn’t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference,

and second you have to have your head up your arse not to be able
to see 1/(5-3) = 0.5 does not equal 1/(5+3) = 0.125
but of course you DO have your head up your arse.
The inconsistency is

we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from
A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A,
imbecile.
Einstein – dumbest bastard to have ever existed (after Webb).

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

_________________________________________________________________________
Couple of basic errors. A definition cannot be an inconsistency in physics;

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

I didn’t expect you to admit you are a stupid cunt, Webb, dumbfucks

like you never do.
Just because the liar Einstein calls his inconsistent third postulate a

definition doesn’t make it a definition, and it is inconsistent because

rAB/(c-v) does not equal rAB/(c+v) and no wishful thinking can make
it so, you fucking imbecile.

Your question was answered, you useless squirming wanker, the “couple

of basic errors” are all Einstein’s and there are many more than a couple.

“In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.”

and in the second place it is clear his equations are NOT linear, but that’s
way beyond your shit-filled head’s understanding.

____________________________________________
Actually, they are linear transformations,

 

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

You fucking liar, you don’t even know what a coordinate

transformation is.

 

x –> x’ = x-vt is a linear coordinate transformation.

x’ –> xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is non-linear abject nonsense,

but in any event

you have to have your head up your arse not to be able

to see 5/(2) = 2.5 does not equal 5/8

but of course you DO have your head up your arse.

 

.

 

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn’t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference and c+v, c-v are
the measured speeds of light in one of them, you clueless cunt!
___________________________________________________
No, that's not the claim made

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

Yes it is, you lying cunt. You need to learn some basic honesty, you

pile of ignorant lying shit.

Are you deliberately trying to cultivate an image of mental instability,

you fucking LYING idiot? If not, why do you this, you stupid cunt?

Are you genuinely mentally ill, with a proper medical diagnosis,

you deranged psychotic bastard?

Rhetorical question, you have demonstrated you are insane.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 7, 9:16 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
>
> Remember this?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f9c3288cbc9...

>
> ______________________________________________________________
> No, I didn't. I checked - its easily forgettable. Its one of those posts
> where you have no physics content but instead complain that everybody else
> is wrong about Relativity without giving reasons.

That is because peter webb is mentally retarded unable to understand
relativity. <shrug>

> Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
> inconsistencies? No? That's because of two reasons. Firstly, SR has no
> internal inconsistencies. Secondly, you know nothing about physics.

Koobee Wublee’s posts are not for the mentally retarded such as peter
webb, ok? <shrug>

> Why do you post to physics newsgroups when you obviously know zero physics?
> Because you are an idiot?

Koobee Wublee has repeatedly explained the faults in SR as well as in
GR in terms of mathematics as well as experimentations. peter webb is
indeed a moron not capable of understanding all that. <shrug>

Since the professors are not responding any more, peter webb offers an
opportunity for Koobee Wublee to explain more about the situation
where all self-styled physicists are scared shitless confronting
Koobee Wublee. This is a fact. <shrug>

For instance, Tom Roberts has shown time over time that he’d try his
best not to engage with Koobee Wublee, but occasionally, Tom would not
resist for what he thought as an easy kill. It turns out to be
mistakes after mistakes on Tom’s part. Koobee Wublee is still waiting
for a proper excuse from a professional experimental physicist (Tom
Roberts) who thinks when experiments that both satisfy a thesis and
its antithesis, it is somewhat OK for Tom to decide the thesis is
validated by these experiments while its antithesis is rejected.
<shrug>

As for the little professor from Norway, most of what he has attempted
to demystify the crackpots such as the ones who still believe in
Michell’s ballistic theory of light raises no objections from Koobee
Wublee. However, the reverse is not true. Koobee Wublee’s remarks
are certainly not embraced by this very small professor, and he has
chosen to be a coward and remain silent in the past year or two. His
extreme caution in dealing with Koobee Wublee is very
understandable. :-) After all, he was ripped into pieces every time
by Koobee Wublee. :-) What a very small professor he is. All he has
to do is to embrace scientific methodology and abandon the dark side
of mathematics --- mathemagics. <shrug>

Could peter webb the mentally retarded explain why the professors are
scared shitless in engaging with Koobee Wublee? It is obvious. Only
the mentally retards like peter webb, the little bitch, the spermless
sperm lover itself, and some other morons would come to disrupt any
discussions. Was peter webb paid to disrupt these discussions just
like a male prostitute would? <shrug>

So, keep posting, peter webb the idiot. Koobee Wublee will think
about some more things to add to your ranting. :-)

[Peter Webb]

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>

wrote in message news:C2vcs.420117$1R2.2...@fx07.am4...

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tt50$dr$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:wrucs.377575$4z5.3...@fx08.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tq08$ptt$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:tTscs.220303$jS5....@fx27.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tk38$rmc$1...@news.albasani.net...



Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
inconsistencies?

==============================================
Yes, you fucking moron.

t�A-tB = rAB/(c+v)
tB-tA = rAB/(c-v)
t�A-tB = tB-tA.

ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn�t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference,

and second you have to have your head up your arse not to be able
to see 1/(5-3) = 0.5 does not equal 1/(5+3) = 0.125
but of course you DO have your head up your arse.
The inconsistency is

we establish by definition that the �time� required by light to travel from
A to B equals the �time� it requires to travel from B to A,
imbecile.
Einstein � dumbest bastard to have ever existed (after Webb).

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

_________________________________________________________________________
Couple of basic errors. A definition cannot be an inconsistency in physics;

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

I didn�t expect you to admit you are a stupid cunt, Webb, dumbfucks

like you never do.
Just because the liar Einstein calls his inconsistent third postulate a

definition doesn�t make it a definition, and it is inconsistent because

rAB/(c-v) does not equal rAB/(c+v) and no wishful thinking can make
it so, you fucking imbecile.

Your question was answered, you useless squirming wanker, the �couple

of basic errors� are all Einstein�s and there are many more than a couple.

�In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.�

and in the second place it is clear his equations are NOT linear, but that�s
way beyond your shit-filled head�s understanding.

____________________________________________
Actually, they are linear transformations,

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

You fucking liar, you don�t even know what a coordinate
transformation is.

x �> x� = x-vt is a linear coordinate transformation.
x� �> xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is non-linear abject nonsense,

____________________________________________________
No, it is in fact linear in both x (distance) and t (time), which are the
two co-ordinates. So lets add "linear transformation" to the seemingly
infinite number of mathematics and physics terms you don't understand.

[hanson]

"it is a fact" said Einstein's largest Dinglebery, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> & he wrote:
> "both x (distance) and t (time), which are mathematics
> and physics terms [that Webb] don't understand".
>
as little as Webb did not understand that OP "Stinky Stocky"
was egging on folks and was mocking Einstein to the max.
>
One can fathom that geriatric mental patient Webb did
not heed Andro's and/or KW's advice for reasons of
his senile stubbornness.
>
So, that only leaves the choice that yenter Webb
is dominated by his kike relatives who order him to
defend their ilk's role model, although said idol
___ Einstein himself was a Relativity denier ___

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k4uue1$9cm$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:C2vcs.420117$1R2.2...@fx07.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tt50$dr$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:wrucs.377575$4z5.3...@fx08.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tq08$ptt$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:tTscs.220303$jS5....@fx27.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k4tk38$rmc$1...@news.albasani.net...



Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
inconsistencies?

==============================================
Yes, you fucking moron.

t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v)
tB-tA  = rAB/(c-v)
t’A-tB = tB-tA.

ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn’t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference,

and second you have to have your head up your arse not to be able
to see 1/(5-3) = 0.5 does not equal 1/(5+3) = 0.125
but of course you DO have your head up your arse.
The inconsistency is

we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from
A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A,
imbecile.
Einstein – dumbest bastard to have ever existed (after Webb).

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

_________________________________________________________________________
Couple of basic errors. A definition cannot be an inconsistency in physics;

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

I didn’t expect you to admit you are a stupid cunt, Webb, dumbfucks

like you never do.
Just because the liar Einstein calls his inconsistent third postulate a

definition doesn’t make it a definition, and it is inconsistent because

rAB/(c-v) does not equal rAB/(c+v) and no wishful thinking can make
it so, you fucking imbecile.

Your question was answered, you useless squirming wanker, the “couple

of basic errors” are all Einstein’s and there are many more than a couple.

“In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.”

and in the second place it is clear his equations are NOT linear, but that’s
way beyond your shit-filled head’s understanding.

____________________________________________
Actually, they are linear transformations,

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

You fucking liar, you don’t even know what a coordinate
transformation is.

x –> x’ = x-vt is a linear coordinate transformation.
x’ –> xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is non-linear abject nonsense,

____________________________________________________
No

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

x –> x’ = x-vt is a linear coordinate transformation.
x’ –> xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is non-linear abject nonsense, Mr. “No” Webb, you crazy clueless cunt.

Are you deliberately trying to cultivate an image of mental instability,

you fucking LYING idiot? If not, why do you this, you stupid cunt?

Are you genuinely mentally ill, with a proper medical diagnosis,

you deranged psychotic bastard?

Rhetorical question, you have demonstrated you are insane.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 07.10.2012 09:34, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 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>

Indeed.
Here are the lethal arguments you made before (September 2008):

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

Koobee Wublee wrote:
| You are an amateur mathemaGician despite being a professor at an
| obscure Norwegian university. Is that a 2-year community college like
| we have over here for the high-school drop-outs in the US to have a
| second chance of learning what they should have learnt in high school
| in the first place?
|
| Of course, you and all the priests of SR and GR can just toss the
| garbage of resolution to the twins� paradox at me where each one is
| contradictory to the others. It is no different from a chimpanzee
| throwing his own excrement at the zoo-keepers. <shrug> Oh, well.
| <:-)>

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

>
>>> 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

I suppose this rambling was no serious attempt to prove anything,
or was it? :-)

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

Ah. "earlier in some other thread" which isn't recorded at Google ? :-)

As you so correctly point out, I have documented what I actually said.

>
>>>>> 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

Here is how:
You repeat your claim that the velocity of
the star contributes to stellar aberration.

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

You have made a 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.
>
> 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>

You have just claimed that stellar aberration refutes
the principle of relativity. :-)

Woobleean logic? :-)

The fact is that both Galilean relativity and Lorentzian relativity
predicts stellar aberration exactly as observed.
(The difference between the two is unmeasurable.)
See:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

>
>>> 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>
>

Koobee Wublee thoroughly demonstrates his ignorance of the technical
as well as the historical aspects of the GPS:

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

>
> If you are afraid to go back to GPS, Koobee Wublee understands your
> fear.

So let's go back:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d3e73eaacb663aae
or
http://tinyurl.com/8ot4xtn

> 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>

Could I get your reaction to this again, please?
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Maybe you yet again could demonstrate that you don't
know the difference between stellar aberration and parallax?

And possibly yet again make a giant fool of yourself
by yet again repeating your claim that the velocity of
the star contributes to stellar aberration?

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

This is fun, isn't it? :-)

--
Paul

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

[Dissitr]

On Oct 4, 5:38 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> 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>
>

> 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>

Mr Einstein whos wife was still a physicist like any other while her
husband worked in a patents office?

[Peter Webb]

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>

wrote in message news:%Bucs.335936$pO4.3...@fx17.am4...

_______________________________________________
Correct. They are done on uplink.

and it says I’m currently on the other side of the street 15 metres
away. ALL computation is done in my phone and there are millions
just like it without any atomic clocks.

________________________________________
No, not all computation is done in your phone. I can only recommend (again)
that you learn about a subject before posting on it;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System is a pretty obvious
place to start.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 8, 1:49 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 07.10.2012 09:34, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> Indeed.
> Here are the lethal arguments you made before (September 2008):
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
>
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> | You are an amateur mathemaGician despite being a professor at an
> | obscure Norwegian university. Is that a 2-year community college like
> | we have over here for the high-school drop-outs in the US to have a
> | second chance of learning what they should have learnt in high school
> | in the first place?
> |
> | Of course, you and all the priests of SR and GR can just toss the

> | garbage of resolution to the twins’ paradox at me where each one is

> | contradictory to the others. It is no different from a chimpanzee
> | throwing his own excrement at the zoo-keepers. <shrug> Oh, well.
> | <:-)>
>
> Koobee sure knows how to point out mathematical errors! :-)

Great post from Koobee Wublee. When was that? Koobee Wublee is so
proud of Himself. :-)

> > Remember this?
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f9c3288cbc93ca08
>
> I suppose this rambling was no serious attempt to prove anything,
> or was it? :-)

No, the post shows where the common mathemagics is to mystify the
twins’ paradox. In doing so, Koobee Wublee has pointed out where your
mathemagics resides, and the little professor has the choice of
running away from his own mathemagic tricks. That is understandable.
After all, Tom has abandoned your appraoch and now is promoting the
proper time bullshit to mystify the subject even further. :-)

> Ah. "earlier in some other thread" which isn't recorded at Google ? :-)

It is rather difficult to find things under Google. Now, just tell
us. How far back did you make that stupid comment claiming GR
correction to GPS was for the benefit of demodulating the GPS
signals? <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>
>
> As you so correctly point out, I have documented what I actually said.

Well, thank you. Now, do you remember that gross blunder of yours on
waves? What was that about? Maybe you can point out how you put your
foot in your mouth on that one. Or Koobee Wublee vaguely remembers
something about you trying to create your own laws of physics on
transverse Doppler shift. Maybe you can point out where you try to
play God again. <shrug> Koobee Wublee couldn’t wait. Koobee Wublee
is holding His breath. So don’t let Koobee Wublee wait too long,
ok? :-)

> You repeat your claim that the velocity of
> the star contributes to stellar aberration.

Yes, indeed. That is basic Galilean geometry. <shrug>

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

That is not possible. <shrug>

> You have made a fool of yourself.

How is that again? <shrug>

> > 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>
>
> You have just claimed that stellar aberration refutes
> the principle of relativity. :-)

No, Koobee Wublee did not say that. <shrug>

> Woobleean logic? :-)

The little professor is making things up again. He tried to create
his own laws of physics, and he is trying to create history. :-)

> The fact is that both Galilean relativity and Lorentzian relativity
> predicts stellar aberration exactly as observed.
>
> (The difference between the two is unmeasurable.)
> See:http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

So, the velocity of both the source and the destination must
contribute to aberration. See how the little professor puts his foot
in his mouth again. :-)

> Koobee Wublee thoroughly demonstrates his ignorance of the technical
> as well as the historical aspects of the GPS:

The little professor is as delusional as always. At least, the little
professor remains consistent in that state of denial. <shrug>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5847920d8e5...

>
> > If you are afraid to go back to GPS, Koobee Wublee understands your
> > fear.
>
> So let's go back:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d3e73eaacb6...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/8ot4xtn

Koobee Wublee has stood by the unnecessary task to correct the GPS for
GR effect even if existed, and the reason is very simple. It is just
a matter of solving four equations and four unknowns. Now, the little
professor has wised up after making the blunder by claiming the GR
correction to GPS is required for demodulation purpose. Dealing with
the little professor is elusive. He changes his mind from one
microsecond to the next. So, Koobee Wublee would like to know in the
little professor’s own words NOW why he thinks GR correction is still
necessary. <shrug>

> > 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>
>
> Could I get your reaction to this again, please?http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Sure. The little professor has tossed out the principle of relativity
and the Galilean geometry by claiming the velocity of the source has
no effect on aberration. How silly! :-)

> Maybe you yet again could demonstrate that you don't
> know the difference between stellar aberration and parallax?

If you want to know the differences between aberration and parallax,
check out Wikipedia. Why is that so difficult? <shrug>

> And possibly yet again make a giant fool of yourself
> by yet again repeating your claim that the velocity of
> the star contributes to stellar aberration?

It must according to the principle of relativity and/or the Galilean
geometry. <shrug>

> > Stop trembling! Or we can discuss the Cosmological Constant if you
> > feel more comfortable. <shrug>
>
> This is fun, isn't it? :-)

Although Koobee Wublee does not take pleasure witnessing some clown
making a complete fool out of himself, it is kind of amusing to watch
the little professor babbling with cold sweats running down his
forehead. Koobee Wublee knows the little professor and other self-
style physicists practically have their hearts stopped when they
learnt that Koobee Wublee has just replied to their posts. :-)

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k505km$mc7$1...@news.albasani.net...

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

No, you are wandering off the subject.

No, Are you no deliberately no trying
to no cultivate an no image of no mental no instability, you no fucking idiot? No, If not,

no why do you no this, you no stupid no cunt? No, Are you no genuinely no mentally no

ill, with a no proper no medical no diagnosis, you no psychotic no bastard?

Crazy fuckwit Webb asked:

Now, can you point out any mathematical errors in SR, or any
inconsistencies?

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

Androcles replied:

Yes, you fucking moron.

t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v)

tB-tA = rAB/(c-v)

t’A-tB = tB-tA.

ref:

 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

First of all c-v and c+v shouldn’t exist at all since it is claimed that the

speed of light is the same in all frames of reference,

and second you have to have your head up your arse not to be able

to see 1/(5-3) = 0.5 does not equal 1/(5+3) = 0.125

but of course you DO have your head up your arse.

The inconsistency is

we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A,

imbecile.

Einstein – dumbest bastard to have ever existed (after No Webb).

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

news:fbcd8d44-2ea5-43ab...@p5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

________________________________________________________________
ROFL. Einstein's derivation of SR used no more mathematics than Pythogoras's
theorem and elementary algebra. If you think Pythogoras is "mathemagics" you
have less knowledge of maths than a typical 16 year old, and have no
business posting in a science or maths newsgroup.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 8, 9:18 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

> > No, the post shows where the common mathemagics is to mystify the
> > twins’ paradox. In doing so, Koobee Wublee has pointed out where your
> > mathemagics resides, and the little professor has the choice of
> > running away from his own mathemagic tricks.
>

> ROFL. Einstein's derivation of SR used no more mathematics than Pythogoras's
> theorem and elementary algebra.

You, peter webb, has no fvcking idea what you are babbling about.
<shrug>

> If you think Pythogoras is "mathemagics" you
> have less knowledge of maths than a typical 16 year old, and have no
> business posting in a science or maths newsgroup.

Koobee Wublee does not think the Pythagoras theorem is anything
mathemagic. That means Koobee Wublee has more motions posting in the
science and math newsgroups. <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

news:347d014b-1495-4397...@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 8, 9:18 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

> > No, the post shows where the common mathemagics is to mystify the

> > twins� paradox. In doing so, Koobee Wublee has pointed out where your

> > mathemagics resides, and the little professor has the choice of
> > running away from his own mathemagic tricks.
>
> ROFL. Einstein's derivation of SR used no more mathematics than
> Pythogoras's
> theorem and elementary algebra.

You, peter webb, has no fvcking idea what you are babbling about.
<shrug>

> If you think Pythogoras is "mathemagics" you
> have less knowledge of maths than a typical 16 year old, and have no
> business posting in a science or maths newsgroup.

Koobee Wublee does not think the Pythagoras theorem is anything
mathemagic. That means Koobee Wublee has more motions posting in the
science and math newsgroups. <shrug>

________________________________________________
Well, if it isn't Pythogoras's theorem which you don't understand, then it
must be the simple algebra. Perhaps if you were to identify the algebraic
step in Einstein's derivation that you don't understand - the "mathemagics"
step - and somebody with a knowledge of algebra exceeding that of a 15 year
old can explain it to you. Like me, or some other poster. Just because you
don't understand simple mathematics doesn't mean Einstein's derivation of SR
was wrong; it simply means you don't know much mathematics.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k50a1c$qn2$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Koobee Wublee"  wrote in message
news:347d014b-1495-4397...@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 8, 9:18 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee"  wrote:

> > No, the post shows where the common mathemagics is to mystify the

> > twins’ paradox.  In doing so, Koobee Wublee has pointed out where your

> > mathemagics resides, and the little professor has the choice of
> > running away from his own mathemagic tricks.
>
> ROFL. Einstein's derivation of SR used no more mathematics than
> Pythogoras's
> theorem and elementary algebra.

You, peter webb, has no fvcking idea what you are babbling about.
<shrug>

> If you think Pythogoras is "mathemagics" you
> have less knowledge of maths than a typical 16 year old, and have no
> business posting in a science or maths newsgroup.

Koobee Wublee does not think the Pythagoras theorem is anything
mathemagic.  That means Koobee Wublee has more motions posting in the
science and math newsgroups.  <shrug>

________________________________________________
Well, if it isn't Pythogoras's theorem which you don't understand, then it
must be the simple algebra. Perhaps if you were to identify the algebraic
step in Einstein's derivation that you don't understand - the "mathemagics"
step - and somebody with a knowledge of algebra exceeding that of a 15 year
old can explain it to you. Like me, or some other poster. Just because you
don't understand simple mathematics doesn't mean Einstein's derivation of SR
was wrong; it simply means you don't know much mathematics.

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

Well, if it isn’t tA-tB = rAB/(c-v) you don’t understand, then it must be

simple arithmetic, you crazy cunt. Get someone with a knowledge of

arithmetic exceeding that of a five-year-old to explain it to you. Just

because you don’t understand kiddy arithmetic doesn’t mean Einstein’s

crap is right;  it simply means you are fucking stupid, Mr. “No” Webb.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 8, 9:43 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

> > Koobee Wublee does not think the Pythagoras theorem is anything
> > mathemagic. That means Koobee Wublee has more motions posting in the
> > science and math newsgroups. <shrug>
>

> Well, if it isn't Pythogoras's theorem which you don't understand, then it
> must be the simple algebra.

How do you come up with this conclusion? <shrug>

> Perhaps if you were to identify the algebraic
> step in Einstein's derivation that you don't understand - the "mathemagics"
> step - and somebody with a knowledge of algebra exceeding that of a 15 year
> old can explain it to you. Like me, or some other poster.

And there is none in the derivations of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar on SR that Koobee Wublee does not
understand. <shrug>

> Just because you
> don't understand simple mathematics doesn't mean Einstein's derivation of SR
> was wrong; it simply means you don't know much mathematics.

Your assumptions are all false in the first place, and that brought
you down into the path of hatred for all scholarly works debunking the
Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

Tell us which professor ordered you to be a male prostitute to bring
up all these nonsensical allegations?

[Peter Webb]

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>

wrote in message news:LoOcs.385529$4z5....@fx08.am4...

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k50a1c$qn2$1...@news.albasani.net...


"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:347d014b-1495-4397...@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 8, 9:18 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

> > No, the post shows where the common mathemagics is to mystify the

> > twins� paradox. In doing so, Koobee Wublee has pointed out where your

> > mathemagics resides, and the little professor has the choice of
> > running away from his own mathemagic tricks.
>
> ROFL. Einstein's derivation of SR used no more mathematics than
> Pythogoras's
> theorem and elementary algebra.

You, peter webb, has no fvcking idea what you are babbling about.
<shrug>

> If you think Pythogoras is "mathemagics" you
> have less knowledge of maths than a typical 16 year old, and have no
> business posting in a science or maths newsgroup.

Koobee Wublee does not think the Pythagoras theorem is anything
mathemagic. That means Koobee Wublee has more motions posting in the
science and math newsgroups. <shrug>

________________________________________________
Well, if it isn't Pythogoras's theorem which you don't understand, then it
must be the simple algebra. Perhaps if you were to identify the algebraic
step in Einstein's derivation that you don't understand - the "mathemagics"
step - and somebody with a knowledge of algebra exceeding that of a 15 year
old can explain it to you. Like me, or some other poster. Just because you
don't understand simple mathematics doesn't mean Einstein's derivation of SR
was wrong; it simply means you don't know much mathematics.

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

Well, if it isn�t tA-tB = rAB/(c-v) you don�t understand, then it must be
simple arithmetic,
____________________________________________

I understand the simple mathematics of SR very well. It was you who
described it as "mathemagic", a pretty clear indication that the maths is
beyond you. If you understand the maths involved in Einstein's derivation of
SR, you wouldn't call it "mathemagic", you would refer to much as I did -
Pythagoras's Theorem plus some simple algebra.

What you need to do is identify which mathematical step in Einstein's
derivation of SR you don't understand - what seems "mathemagic" to you - and
I or somebody else with more mathematical sophistication than a 15 year old
will explain it to you.

So, again, what mathematical step in Einstein's derivation of SR do you not
understand, so it can be explained to you?

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

news:bbb20bdf-cd7d-41da...@ro10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 8, 9:43 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

> > Koobee Wublee does not think the Pythagoras theorem is anything
> > mathemagic. That means Koobee Wublee has more motions posting in the
> > science and math newsgroups. <shrug>
>
> Well, if it isn't Pythogoras's theorem which you don't understand, then it
> must be the simple algebra.

How do you come up with this conclusion? <shrug>

> Perhaps if you were to identify the algebraic
> step in Einstein's derivation that you don't understand - the
> "mathemagics"
> step - and somebody with a knowledge of algebra exceeding that of a 15
> year
> old can explain it to you. Like me, or some other poster.

And there is none in the derivations of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar on SR that Koobee Wublee does not
understand. <shrug>

__________________________________________________________
Clearly there is, because you described it as "mathemagical". Perhaps if you
explained which mathematical step in Einstein's derivation of SR is
"mathemagical" to you, I could explain it to you?

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 09.10.2012 05:53, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:49 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> On 07.10.2012 09:34, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> Indeed.
>> Here are the lethal arguments you made before (September 2008):
>>
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
>>
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>> | You are an amateur mathemaGician despite being a professor at an
>> | obscure Norwegian university. Is that a 2-year community college like
>> | we have over here for the high-school drop-outs in the US to have a
>> | second chance of learning what they should have learnt in high school
>> | in the first place?
>> |
>> | Of course, you and all the priests of SR and GR can just toss the

>> | garbage of resolution to the twins� paradox at me where each one is

>> | contradictory to the others. It is no different from a chimpanzee
>> | throwing his own excrement at the zoo-keepers. <shrug> Oh, well.
>> | <:-)>
>>
>> Koobee sure knows how to point out mathematical errors! :-)
>
> Great post from Koobee Wublee. When was that? Koobee Wublee is so
> proud of Himself. :-)

Fine.
So we can consider this posting of yours to be a representative
documentation of your ability to point out mathematical errors.

>> You repeat your claim that the velocity of
>> the star contributes to stellar aberration.
>
> Yes, indeed. That is basic Galilean geometry. <shrug>
>
>> It is an experimentally proven fact that the velocity of
>> the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
>
> That is not possible. <shrug>

I rest my case.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Now, do you remember that gross blunder of yours on
> waves? What was that about? Maybe you can point out how you put your
> foot in your mouth on that one. Or Koobee Wublee vaguely remembers
> something about you trying to create your own laws of physics on
> transverse Doppler shift. Maybe you can point out where you try to

> play God again. <shrug> Koobee Wublee couldn�t wait. Koobee Wublee
> is holding His breath. So don�t let Koobee Wublee wait too long,
> ok? :-)

Thank you very much for yet another opportunity to remind you
of old blunders. You must be a masochist! :-)

So let's review our discussion on transverse Doppler shift:
It started with this paper:

http://tinyurl.com/9ph8azu

Where the author Thim claims to have shown that there is
no transverse Doppler shift.

I wrote a posting pointing out the (I suspect well known)
flaws in Thim's experiment:

http://tinyurl.com/9zc2ptm
(the pointer to Thim's paper doesn't work, use the above)

But Koobee Wublee didn't agree:

http://tinyurl.com/99vf26d

Here is my last posting in the thread:

http://tinyurl.com/3t4s3m

Koobee Wublee never responded.

To sum it up:
Here is what I said about transverse Doppler shift:

| The angle phi' in the rest frame of the receiver relates
| to the angle phi in the rest frame of the transmitter thus:
| cos(phi') = (cos(phi)-v/c)/(1 - (v/c)cos(phi))
| combining this with:
| f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| yield:
| f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1+(v/c)cos(phi'))
| which, when phi' = pi/2 simplifies to:
| f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
| in the source frame S, then phi = pi/2, and the observed Doppler shift
| will be:
| f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
| This is a blue shift
|
| If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
| in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2 and cos(phi) = v/c,
| and the observed Doppler shift will be:
| f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
| f' = f*(1 - (v/c)^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
| f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
| This is a red shift.
|
| Since this follows from the very mathematics of
| the Lorentz transform which you claim to understand,
| I will assume you know this is correct.
|
| In the case you don't agree, I challenge you to show that
| the above is NOT what the Lorentz transform predicts.

You called this "gibberish", and never met the challenge.

But maybe you will do it now? :-)


--
Paul

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

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k50kcg$78a$1...@news.albasani.net...

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org>
wrote in message news:LoOcs.385529$4z5....@fx08.am4...
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k50a1c$qn2$1...@news.albasani.net...


"Koobee Wublee"  wrote in message
news:347d014b-1495-4397...@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 8, 9:18 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee"  wrote:

> > No, the post shows where the common mathemagics is to mystify the

> > twins’ paradox.  In doing so, Koobee Wublee has pointed out where your

> > mathemagics resides, and the little professor has the choice of
> > running away from his own mathemagic tricks.
>
> ROFL. Einstein's derivation of SR used no more mathematics than
> Pythogoras's
> theorem and elementary algebra.

You, peter webb, has no fvcking idea what you are babbling about.
<shrug>

> If you think Pythogoras is "mathemagics" you
> have less knowledge of maths than a typical 16 year old, and have no
> business posting in a science or maths newsgroup.

Koobee Wublee does not think the Pythagoras theorem is anything
mathemagic.  That means Koobee Wublee has more motions posting in the
science and math newsgroups.  <shrug>

________________________________________________
Well, if it isn't Pythogoras's theorem which you don't understand, then it
must be the simple algebra. Perhaps if you were to identify the algebraic
step in Einstein's derivation that you don't understand - the "mathemagics"
step - and somebody with a knowledge of algebra exceeding that of a 15 year
old can explain it to you. Like me, or some other poster. Just because you
don't understand simple mathematics doesn't mean Einstein's derivation of SR
was wrong; it simply means you don't know much mathematics.

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

Well, if it isn’t tA-tB = rAB/(c-v) you don’t understand, then it must be

simple arithmetic,
____________________________________________

I understand the simple mathematics of SR very well.

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

No you don’t, you lying cunt, or you wouldn’t be arguing with Kinky Wobbly.

 

 

It was you who
described it as "mathemagic", a pretty clear indication that the maths is
beyond you.

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

No, Webb, mathematics is Kinky Wobbly’s term and irrelevant. If it isn’t

tA-tB = rAB/(c-v) you don’t understand then it must be simple arithmetic, you

stupid fucking moron.

 

If you

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

No, Webb, it’s not about me, you crazy cunt, Webb.

No, if it isn’t tA-tB = rAB/(c-v) you don’t understand then it must be simple arithmetic,

you stupid fucking moron.

 

 

 

What you need

---------------------------------

No, Webb, it’s not about me, you crazy cunt, Webb.

No, if it isn’t tA-tB = rAB/(c-v) you don’t understand then it must be simple

arithmetic, you stupid fucking moron.

No, you didn’t even see my deliberate error, you fucking imbecile.

No, Webb, no.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 9, 5:45 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 09.10.2012 05:53, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Koobee Wublee wrote years ago:

> > > You are an amateur mathemaGician despite being a professor at an
> > > obscure Norwegian university. Is that a 2-year community college like
> > > we have over here for the high-school drop-outs in the US to have a
> > > second chance of learning what they should have learnt in high school
> > > in the first place?
>
> > > Of course, you and all the priests of SR and GR can just toss the

> > > garbage of resolution to the twins’ paradox at me where each one is

> > > contradictory to the others. It is no different from a chimpanzee
> > > throwing his own excrement at the zoo-keepers. <shrug> Oh, well.
> > > <:-)>
>

> > Great post from Koobee Wublee. When was that? Koobee Wublee is so
> > proud of Himself. :-)
>
> Fine.
> So we can consider this posting of yours to be a representative
> documentation of your ability to point out mathematical errors.

OK, you got it. <shrug>

> > Yes, indeed. That is basic Galilean geometry. <shrug>
>

> I rest my case.

:-) If the little professor were an Aetherist, he can slide that one
past claiming not source dependent. Now, we know the little professor
does not understand simple Galilean geometry. It is amazing that he
would claim aberration has nothing to do with the velocities of the
source and implying the destination as well. <shrug>

> > Now, do you remember that gross blunder of yours on
> > waves? What was that about? Maybe you can point out how you put your
> > foot in your mouth on that one. Or Koobee Wublee vaguely remembers
> > something about you trying to create your own laws of physics on
> > transverse Doppler shift. Maybe you can point out where you try to

> > play God again. <shrug> Koobee Wublee couldn’t wait. Koobee Wublee
> > is holding His breath. So don’t let Koobee Wublee wait too long,

> > ok? :-)
>
> Thank you very much for yet another opportunity to remind you
> of old blunders. You must be a masochist! :-)

Actually, it was your blunders. :-) And the gratitude is in Koobee
Wublee since you have done us a great favor by documenting these
conversations so thoroughly. :-)

> So let's review our discussion on transverse Doppler shift:
> It started with this paper:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9ph8azu
>
> Where the author Thim claims to have shown that there is
> no transverse Doppler shift.
>
> I wrote a posting pointing out the (I suspect well known)
> flaws in Thim's experiment:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9zc2ptm
> (the pointer to Thim's paper doesn't work, use the above)
>
> But Koobee Wublee didn't agree:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/99vf26d
>
> Here is my last posting in the thread:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3t4s3m
>
> Koobee Wublee never responded.

Oh, yes. Thank you for bringing up something Koobee Wublee has
missed. Koobee Wublee first must apologize for not able to point out
this blundering post of yours. It must not be ranking among one of
the top bullshit among Einstein Dingleberries at that time. <shrug>

Let’s see.

> To sum it up:
> Here is what I said about transverse Doppler shift:
>
> | The angle phi' in the rest frame of the receiver relates
> | to the angle phi in the rest frame of the transmitter thus:
> | cos(phi') = (cos(phi)-v/c)/(1 - (v/c)cos(phi))

This is questionable. <shrug>

> | combining this with:
> | f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

For a more concise and intuitive form, the following is the same as
the above.

** f_T = f_R (1 – [B_RT] * [B_RL]) / sqrt(1 – B_RT^2)

Where

** f_T = Frequency transmitted by the transmitter
** f_R = Frequency received by receiver
** [B_RT] c = Velocity of the transmitter as observed by the recv
** [B_RL] c = Velocity of the signal (light) as observed by recv
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

But wait! How do you arrive at that equation? According to
derivations directly from the Lorentz transform, it will show exactly
the opposite. <shrug>

** dt_T = dt_R (1 – [B_RT] * [B_RL]) / sqrt(1 – B_RT^2)

Where in general

** f = 1 / dt

Don’t tell us that you just sew the classical Doppler shift with the
gamma factor together. Yeah, that only happens in fairy tales where
Dr. Frankenstein is able to create the monster from sewing all dead
body parts together. <shrug>

> | If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
> | in the source frame S, then phi = pi/2,

This is what transverse means as it is always told from the receiver’s
point of view. In this case, transverse means the following must be
true and none others:

** [B_RT] * [B_RL] = 0

Koobee Wublee has been posting dot products for years without
realizing PD who was a physics college professor at the University of
Texas in Austin did not understand dot products. Koobee Wublee hopes
the near vegetated state in which the little professor has degenerated
into in the past few years would at least be able to understand dot
products. <shrug>

> and the observed Doppler shift
> | will be:
> | f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> | This is a blue shift

If the little professor can derive the relativistic Doppler shift
equation, Koobee Wublee has no objections. This might be one of the
reasons why Koobee Wublee did not even bother to reply. <shrug>

> | If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
> | in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2 and cos(phi) = v/c,
> | and the observed Doppler shift will be:
> | f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> | f' = f*(1 - (v/c)^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> | f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> | This is a red shift.

And this will never happen in Galilean geometry that will result in a
transverse Doppler shift. Since the little professor does not
understand simple Galilean geometry as from the aberration episode
where he has meticulously documented just how ignorant he is, it is
expected that he would manufacture his own laws of physics on this
one. :-)

> | Since this follows from the very mathematics of
> | the Lorentz transform which you claim to understand,
> | I will assume you know this is correct.
>
> | In the case you don't agree, I challenge you to show that
> | the above is NOT what the Lorentz transform predicts.

So, what is your conclusion about transverse Doppler shift? Do you
say blue shift or red shift? According to the main stream self-styled
physicists, they believe in red shift through derivation directly from
the Lorentz transform (f = 1 / dt) which is contradictory to what you
and Koobee Wublee agree on according to the Lorentz transform.
<shrug>

> You called this "gibberish", and never met the challenge.

Let’s see.

Koobee Wublee’s analyses based on the Lorentz transform conclude
transverse Doppler shift ought to be blue shifted, but His position
has been that the Lorentz transform is wrong in the first place.
<shrug>

The little professor comes up with blue shift and hinting he would
stand by red shift if experiments do show so. Don’t you think that is
too confusing? A better explanation is that the little professor has
no idea what is going on and has decided to bet on both sides of the
coin. Well, except that experimental results brought to us by Mr.
Thim show no transverse Doppler shift which indicates it is the edge
of the coin that the little professor has no room to bet on. Sorry
about that! Better luck next time. <shrug>

Mr. Thim has shown transverse Doppler shift is not predicted correctly
by the Lorentz transform as interpreted anyway you like. Thus, the
Lorentz transform must be wrong, and to this day, there have never
been any experiments able to show the transverse Doppler shift to be
either blue or red shifted. So, what is the little professor bitching
about? <shrug>

> But maybe you will do it now? :-)

Thank you for allowing Koobee Wublee another opportunity to show how
incompetent the little professor really is. If the little professor
were able to visit Los Angeles area, please allow Koobee Wublee buy
him a drink for His deep gratitude. :-)

Ps. What about your position on the GPS right now? Have you finally
agreed with Koobee Wublee that GR correction is never necessary (even
if GR effect is real)? <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

news:37f8f0f5-3493-4634...@r8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

________________________________________________________
I haven't been following the thread, but aberration has nothing to do with
the velocities of the objects emitting or absorbing the light, other than
potentially altering the light's frequency due to the Doppler effect. In
fact the only impact that the source moving has is on the frequency of the
light, which is relative to a reference frame anyway (and not an intrinsic
property of the light). This is basic physics.

If you want to post in a physics newsgroup, you should learn basic physics
first.

HTH

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k5398n$7sv$1...@news.albasani.net...

If you want to post in a physics newsgroup, you should learn basic physics
first.

HTH

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

No, how basic do you want it, Webb?

No, rAB/(c-v) doesn’t equal rAB/(c+v) even of the fuckwit Einstein defines it is,

so why are you posting to a physics newsgroup when you haven’t learnt basic

physics yet, you hypocritical cunt?

No, Webb, No!

[Paul B. Andersen]

No it isn't. It's basic relativistic aberration.
If phi is the angle between the wave vector and the velocity
vector in _the source frame_,
then the angle phi' in _the receiver frame_
is:

cos(phi') = (cos(phi)-v/c)/(1 - (v/c)cos(phi))

or:
cos(phi) = (cos(phi')+v/c)/(1 + (v/c)cos(phi'))

You seem to be very confused about this.

>
>> | combining this with:
>> | f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Note that phi is the angle in _the source frame_.
Inserting cos(phi) = (cos(phi') + v/c)/(1 + (v/c)cos(phi')) yields:

f' = f sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 + (v/c)cos(phi'))

> For a more concise and intuitive form, the following is the same as
> the above.
>
> ** f_T = f_R (1 – [B_RT] * [B_RL]) / sqrt(1 – B_RT^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** f_T = Frequency transmitted by the transmitter
> ** f_R = Frequency received by receiver
> ** [B_RT] c = Velocity of the transmitter as observed by the recv
> ** [B_RL] c = Velocity of the signal (light) as observed by recv
> ** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

OK.
So when the light is transverse in the _receiver frame_,
the Doppler shift is according Koobee Wublee:

f_R = f_T sqrt(1 – B_RT^2)/(1 – [B_RT] * [B_RL])

/ phi'
S --------------> v
/
/c
V
R

which is the same as:
f' = f sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 + (v/c) cos(phi'))

We agree.

>> | If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
>> | in the source frame S, then phi = pi/2,

You didn't even notice that the above is transverse
in the _source frame_.

>
> This is what transverse means as it is always told from the receiver’s
> point of view. In this case, transverse means the following must be
> true and none others:
>
> ** [B_RT] * [B_RL] = 0

Right.
So your equation for the Doppler shift when the light is
transverse in the receiver frame becomes:

f_R = f_T sqrt(1 – B_RT^2)

Which is a red shift, and is the same result a mine below.

>
> Koobee Wublee has been posting dot products for years without
> realizing PD who was a physics college professor at the University of
> Texas in Austin did not understand dot products. Koobee Wublee hopes
> the near vegetated state in which the little professor has degenerated
> into in the past few years would at least be able to understand dot
> products. <shrug>
>
>> and the observed Doppler shift
>> | will be:
>> | f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> | This is a blue shift

Again, you missed that this is when the light is transverse
in the source frame.

> If the little professor can derive the relativistic Doppler shift
> equation, Koobee Wublee has no objections. This might be one of the
> reasons why Koobee Wublee did not even bother to reply. <shrug>
>
>> | If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
>> | in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2 and cos(phi) = v/c,
>> | and the observed Doppler shift will be:
>> | f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> | f' = f*(1 - (v/c)^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> | f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> | This is a red shift.

This is when the light is transverse in _the receiver frame_.
And the result is the same as yours.

> And this will never happen in Galilean geometry that will result in a
> transverse Doppler shift. Since the little professor does not
> understand simple Galilean geometry as from the aberration episode
> where he has meticulously documented just how ignorant he is, it is
> expected that he would manufacture his own laws of physics on this
> one. :-)
>
>> | Since this follows from the very mathematics of
>> | the Lorentz transform which you claim to understand,
>> | I will assume you know this is correct.
>>
>> | In the case you don't agree, I challenge you to show that
>> | the above is NOT what the Lorentz transform predicts.
>
> So, what is your conclusion about transverse Doppler shift? Do you
> say blue shift or red shift?

See how confused you are?

So I will repeat what is quoted above.
Is there anything in particular you don't understand?
Is there anything in particular you think is wrong?

Case #1:
--------

If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector

in the source frame S, then phi = pi/2, and the observed Doppler shift

will be:
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

f' = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

This is a blue shift

Case #2:
--------

If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2 and cos(phi) = v/c,
and the observed Doppler shift will be:
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Alternatively:
f' = f sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 + (v/c)cos(phi')), phi' = pi/2

f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
This is a red shift.

It's case #2 that usually is called transverse Doppler shift.

> According to the main stream self-styled
> physicists, they believe in red shift through derivation directly from
> the Lorentz transform (f = 1 / dt) which is contradictory to what you
> and Koobee Wublee agree on according to the Lorentz transform.
> <shrug>
>
>> You called this "gibberish", and never met the challenge.
>
> Let’s see.
>
> Koobee Wublee’s analyses based on the Lorentz transform conclude
> transverse Doppler shift ought to be blue shifted, but His position
> has been that the Lorentz transform is wrong in the first place.

So why does Koobee Wublee conclude transverse Doppler shift ought
to be blue shifted, when Koobee Wublee has shown that it
is red shifted?

> <shrug>
>
> The little professor comes up with blue shift and hinting he would
> stand by red shift if experiments do show so. Don’t you think that is
> too confusing? A better explanation is that the little professor has
> no idea what is going on and has decided to bet on both sides of the
> coin. Well, except that experimental results brought to us by Mr.
> Thim show no transverse Doppler shift which indicates it is the edge
> of the coin that the little professor has no room to bet on. Sorry
> about that! Better luck next time. <shrug>
>
> Mr. Thim has shown transverse Doppler shift is not predicted correctly
> by the Lorentz transform as interpreted anyway you like. Thus, the
> Lorentz transform must be wrong, and to this day, there have never
> been any experiments able to show the transverse Doppler shift to be
> either blue or red shifted. So, what is the little professor bitching
> about? <shrug>

Mr. Thim's experiment is simply wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/9ph8azu
http://tinyurl.com/9zc2ptm
And I am not the only one to notice:
http://tinyurl.com/9l48mun
I think it now is well known that Thim's experiment is wrong.

But the classic experiment confirming SR's prediction for
transverse Doppler shift is Ives-Stilwell, which has been
repeated several times with better precision than the original,
and several Mössbauer rotor experiments have confirmed SR's prediction.

>
>> But maybe you will do it now? :-)
>
> Thank you for allowing Koobee Wublee another opportunity to show how
> incompetent the little professor really is. If the little professor
> were able to visit Los Angeles area, please allow Koobee Wublee buy
> him a drink for His deep gratitude. :-)

Well, all I have said is correct, and despite all your whining,
you have still not pointed out an error.
Quite the contrary, apart from your confusion about
the distinction between transverse in the source frame
and transverse in the receiver frame, and your peculiar
confusion about what is red shift and what is blue shift,
we agree.

So what is all the fuss about?


--
Paul

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

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message news:k54q04$lkf$1...@news.albasani.net...

Case #2:
--------
If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2 and cos(phi) = v/c,
and the observed Doppler shift will be:
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Alternatively:
f' = f sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 + (v/c)cos(phi')), phi' = pi/2
f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
This is a red shift.

It's case #2 that usually is called transverse Doppler shift.

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

 

Only slight hitch with your idiocy is v is 90 degrees from c.

In case you didn’t notice,

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif

eta = y,

zeta = z

does not mean

eta = beta * (y-ut)

zeta = beta * (z-wt)

so there is no transverse Doppler shift,

but you always were an incompetent

babbling idiot, Andersen.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 10, 2:40 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 10.10.2012 07:43, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Oh, yes. Thank you for bringing up something Koobee Wublee has
> > missed. Koobee Wublee first must apologize for not able to point out
> > this blundering post of yours. It must not be ranking among one of
> > the top bullshit among Einstein Dingleberries at that time. <shrug>

Well, Koobee Wublee has some time tonight. So, He examined through
the entire thread to get a better understanding of what the original
issue was about, and the key is to understand Mr. Thim’s experimental
setup. Well, his paper is no longer available. However, Koobee
Wublee in 2006 had the insight of describing the experimental setup.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5b0e79606272c851

So, the transverse effect should be referenced to the transmitter’s
point of view in both cases. Under the principle of relativity, B
moving relative to A is the same as A moving relative to B with
opposite direction. <shrug>

** f_B = f_A (1 – [B_AB] * [B_AL]) / sqrt(1 – B_AB^2)
** f_C = f_B (1 – [B_BC] * [B_BL]) / sqrt(1 – B_BC^2)

Where

** A, C are stationary to each other.
** B = Moving with respect to both A and C
** B_AB^2 = B_BC^2

And to satisfy transverse conditions in both of the transmitter’s
point of view, the following must the case.

** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
** [B_BC] * [B_BL] = 0, where B = transmitter, c = receiver

Over all, assuming the energy of the emitted light is so much smaller
that it would not affect the trajectory of B, the two equations should
be the following as predicted by SR.

** f_C = f_A / (1 – B^2)

Where

** B_AB^2 = B_BC^2 = B^2

This indicates blue shift. Thus, Koobee Wublee stands by His analysis
in 2006. To the horror of Einstein Dingleberries, Mr. Thim’s
experiment did not record any blue shift, and the Lorentz transform
must be wrong. <shrug>

> But the classic experiment confirming SR's prediction for
> transverse Doppler shift is Ives-Stilwell,

That experiment was definitively for longitudinal directions but weak
conclusive case for the transverse directions. <shrug>

> which has been
> repeated several times with better precision than the original,

> and several M ssbauer rotor experiments have confirmed SR's prediction.

Same as Ives-Stillwell. <shrug>

The bottom line is that the little professor needs to quit playing God
by modifying the laws of physics to suit what he happens to believe in
at that moment. <shrug>

According to him, the transverse definition from A to B is in A’s
frame which agrees with Koobee Wublee in 2006. However, the
transverse definition from B to C is suddenly in C’s frame to suit his
own religious belief in SR. <shrug>

The laws of physics created by the little professor can be summed up
as follows.

** f_B = f_A (1 – [B_AB] * [B_AL]) / sqrt(1 – B_AB^2)
** f_B = f_C (1 – [B_CB] * [B_CL]) / sqrt(1 – B_CB^2)

And the above allowed the little professor to come up with the
following claiming SR allows no shift in this case.

** f_C = f_A

Where

** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
** [B_CB] * [B_CL] = 0, where B = transmitter, c = receiver
** B_AB^2 = B_CB^2

Sick, no? <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 11, 12:09 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:40 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

> Well, Koobee Wublee has some time tonight. So, He examined through
> the entire thread to get a better understanding of what the original
> issue was about, and the key is to understand Mr. Thim’s experimental
> setup. Well, his paper is no longer available. However, Koobee
> Wublee in 2006 had the insight of describing the experimental setup.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5b0e7960627...

Mr. Thim’s experiment can only show the invalidity but not the
validity of the Lorentz transform with null results. <shrug>

In this experiment, the principle of relativity must be obeyed if the
analysis is based on SR. Yet, it is not to be so according to
Einstein Dingleberries since A to B is not the same as B to C. The
little professor even pointed out others who came up with the same,
stupid conclusion that whatever goes into an active black box must
come out the same where the black box is the rotating platform fully
capable of amplifying (blue shift) or attenuating (red shift) the
original signal. <shrug>

So, it is understandable that the self-styled physicists would flock
all over inventing their own laws of physics at specific circumstances
to perpetuate their religion known as SR. Indeed very sick! <shrug>

All thanks goes to the little professor who meticulously keeps the
documentations to show how mystified he has been. Let’s give an
applause to the little professor from Norway. <applause>

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 11.10.2012 10:01, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:09 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> Well, Koobee Wublee has some time tonight. So, He examined through
>> the entire thread to get a better understanding of what the original
>> issue was about, and the key is to understand Mr. Thim’s experimental
>> setup. Well, his paper is no longer available. However, Koobee
>> Wublee in 2006 had the insight of describing the experimental setup.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5b0e7960627...

From where I quote these wise words of Koobee Wublee:
<<
After giving Mr. Thim's experiment a few thoughts, I have to say his
setup cannot have yielded the transverse Doppler effect.
>>

But even if Thim's experiment can't have yielded the transverse
Doppler effect, it can, according to Koobee Wublee,
still prove SR's prediction for transverse Doppler wrong:

> Mr. Thim’s experiment can only show the invalidity but not the
> validity of the Lorentz transform with null results. <shrug>
>
> In this experiment, the principle of relativity must be obeyed if the
> analysis is based on SR. Yet, it is not to be so according to
> Einstein Dingleberries since A to B is not the same as B to C. The
> little professor even pointed out others who came up with the same,
> stupid conclusion that whatever goes into an active black box must
> come out the same where the black box is the rotating platform fully
> capable of amplifying (blue shift) or attenuating (red shift) the
> original signal. <shrug>

It would be interesting to see what you would have put into
the black box (no active or non linear components!) to
make it "fully capable of amplifying (blue shift) or attenuating

(red shift) the original signal."

f
_____| |_____
| |
| ? | Can you make f' different from f, Koobee?
|____ ____|
| |
f'

Would you have invoked Wilson's "tick faires" ? :-)

> So, it is understandable that the self-styled physicists would flock
> all over inventing their own laws of physics at specific circumstances
> to perpetuate their religion known as SR. Indeed very sick! <shrug>
>
> All thanks goes to the little professor who meticulously keeps the
> documentations to show how mystified he has been. Let’s give an
> applause to the little professor from Norway.
>
> <applause>

I second that.
Well done, Koobee! :-)

--
Paul

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

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 11.10.2012 09:09, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:40 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> On 10.10.2012 07:43, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> Oh, yes. Thank you for bringing up something Koobee Wublee has
>>> missed. Koobee Wublee first must apologize for not able to point out
>>> this blundering post of yours. It must not be ranking among one of
>>> the top bullshit among Einstein Dingleberries at that time. <shrug>

I note with interest that Koobee Wublee has found it necessary
to snip - without comment - everything I have said about
transverse Doppler shift. I can only interpret this as an admission
of that everything I said was right, and Koobee Wublee was unable
to point out an error in it.

So Wublee Kublee flees the "what does the LT predict for
transverse Doppler" discussion and goes berserk in his attempt
to divert the attention from his defeat.

> Well, Koobee Wublee has some time tonight. So, He examined through
> the entire thread to get a better understanding of what the original

> issue was about, and the key is to understand Mr. Thim�s experimental

> setup. Well, his paper is no longer available.

Yes, it is, and I have given you the pointer. Twice.
http://tinyurl.com/9ph8azu
It is however no more available in the ieee.org archive,
for which there probably is a good reason.

It is now well known that Thim's experiment doesn't measure
what Thim claimed it should.
http://tinyurl.com/9zc2ptm

http://tinyurl.com/9l48mun

Even Koobe Wublee knows that:

> However, Koobee
> Wublee in 2006 had the insight of describing the experimental setup.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5b0e79606272c851

From where I quote these wise words of Koobee Wublee:
<<
After giving Mr. Thim's experiment a few thoughts, I have to say his

setup cannot have yielded the transverse Doppler effect. The reason is
not the Lorentz transform but the rotating device. It acts like a
conductor regardless if rotating or not.
>>

So what are you babbling about in the following?

> So, the transverse effect should be referenced to the transmitter�s

> point of view in both cases. Under the principle of relativity, B
> moving relative to A is the same as A moving relative to B with
> opposite direction. <shrug>
>

> ** f_B = f_A (1 � [B_AB] * [B_AL]) / sqrt(1 � B_AB^2)
> ** f_C = f_B (1 � [B_BC] * [B_BL]) / sqrt(1 � B_BC^2)

>
> Where
>
> ** A, C are stationary to each other.
> ** B = Moving with respect to both A and C
> ** B_AB^2 = B_BC^2
>

> And to satisfy transverse conditions in both of the transmitter�s

> point of view, the following must the case.
>
> ** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
> ** [B_BC] * [B_BL] = 0, where B = transmitter, c = receiver
>
> Over all, assuming the energy of the emitted light is so much smaller
> that it would not affect the trajectory of B, the two equations should
> be the following as predicted by SR.
>

> ** f_C = f_A / (1 � B^2)

>
> Where
>
> ** B_AB^2 = B_BC^2 = B^2
>
> This indicates blue shift. Thus, Koobee Wublee stands by His analysis

> in 2006. To the horror of Einstein Dingleberries, Mr. Thim�s

> experiment did not record any blue shift, and the Lorentz transform
> must be wrong. <shrug>
>
>> But the classic experiment confirming SR's prediction for
>> transverse Doppler shift is Ives-Stilwell,
>
> That experiment was definitively for longitudinal directions but weak
> conclusive case for the transverse directions. <shrug>
>
>> which has been
>> repeated several times with better precision than the original,
>> and several M ssbauer rotor experiments have confirmed SR's prediction.
>
> Same as Ives-Stillwell. <shrug>
>
> The bottom line is that the little professor needs to quit playing God
> by modifying the laws of physics to suit what he happens to believe in
> at that moment. <shrug>
>

> According to him, the transverse definition from A to B is in A�s

> frame which agrees with Koobee Wublee in 2006. However, the

> transverse definition from B to C is suddenly in C�s frame to suit his

> own religious belief in SR. <shrug>
>
> The laws of physics created by the little professor can be summed up
> as follows.
>

> ** f_B = f_A (1 � [B_AB] * [B_AL]) / sqrt(1 � B_AB^2)
> ** f_B = f_C (1 � [B_CB] * [B_CL]) / sqrt(1 � B_CB^2)

>
> And the above allowed the little professor to come up with the
> following claiming SR allows no shift in this case.
>
> ** f_C = f_A
>
> Where
>
> ** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
> ** [B_CB] * [B_CL] = 0, where B = transmitter, c = receiver
> ** B_AB^2 = B_CB^2
>
> Sick, no? <shrug>

--
Paul

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

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 11, "Paul B. Andersen" the little professor wrote:
> On 11.10.2012 Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > So, the transverse effect should be referenced to the transmitter s

> > point of view in both cases. Under the principle of relativity, B
> > moving relative to A is the same as A moving relative to B with
> > opposite direction. <shrug>
>

> > ** f_B = f_A (1 [B_AB] * [B_AL]) / sqrt(1 B_AB^2) (1)
> > ** f_C = f_B (1 [B_BC] * [B_BL]) / sqrt(1 B_BC^2) (2)

>
> > Where
>
> > ** A, C are stationary to each other.
> > ** B = Moving with respect to both A and C
> > ** B_AB^2 = B_BC^2
>

> > And to satisfy transverse conditions in both of the transmitter s

> > point of view, the following must the case.
>
> > ** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
> > ** [B_BC] * [B_BL] = 0, where B = transmitter, c = receiver
>
> > Over all, assuming the energy of the emitted light is so much smaller
> > that it would not affect the trajectory of B, the two equations should
> > be the following as predicted by SR.
>

> > ** f_C = f_A / (1 B^2) (3)

>
> > Where
>
> > ** B_AB^2 = B_BC^2 = B^2
>
> > This indicates blue shift. Thus, Koobee Wublee stands by His analysis

> > in 2006. To the horror of Einstein Dingleberries, Mr. Thim s

> > experiment did not record any blue shift, and the Lorentz transform
> > must be wrong. <shrug>
>
> >> But the classic experiment confirming SR's prediction for
> >> transverse Doppler shift is Ives-Stilwell,
>
> > That experiment was definitively for longitudinal directions but weak
> > conclusive case for the transverse directions. <shrug>
>
> >> which has been
> >> repeated several times with better precision than the original,
> >> and several M ssbauer rotor experiments have confirmed SR's prediction.
>
> > Same as Ives-Stillwell. <shrug>
>
> > The bottom line is that the little professor needs to quit playing God
> > by modifying the laws of physics to suit what he happens to believe in
> > at that moment. <shrug>
>

> > According to him, the transverse definition from A to B is in A s

> > frame which agrees with Koobee Wublee in 2006. However, the

> > transverse definition from B to C is suddenly in C s frame to suit his

> > own religious belief in SR. <shrug>
>
> > The laws of physics created by the little professor can be summed up
> > as follows.
>

> > ** f_B = f_A (1 [B_AB] * [B_AL]) / sqrt(1 B_AB^2) (4)
> > ** f_B = f_C (1 [B_CB] * [B_CL]) / sqrt(1 B_CB^2) (5)

>
> > And the above allowed the little professor to come up with the
> > following claiming SR allows no shift in this case.
>

> > ** f_C = f_A (6)

>
> > Where
>
> > ** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
> > ** [B_CB] * [B_CL] = 0, where B = transmitter, c = receiver
> > ** B_AB^2 = B_CB^2
>
> > Sick, no? <shrug>

For better reference in the discussion to follow, Koobee Wublee went
back to label these equations in Koobee Wublee’s previous post.

<shrug>

> I note with interest that Koobee Wublee has found it necessary
> to snip - without comment - everything I have said about
> transverse Doppler shift. I can only interpret this as an admission
> of that everything I said was right, and Koobee Wublee was unable
> to point out an error in it.

Koobee Wublee in 2006 understood very clearly where the little
professor made the mistake. 6 years later, the little professor is
still clueless. In the discussion above, equations (1) and (4) are
the same. Instead of equation (2), the little professor replaced it
with equation (5) to suit his BELIEF IN SR. There is no need to quote
his bullshit 6 years full of fermentation. A couple equations would
easily sum up, and the little professor is too stupid to realize
that. <shrug>

> So Wublee Kublee flees the "what does the LT predict for
> transverse Doppler" discussion and goes berserk in his attempt
> to divert the attention from his defeat.

The little professor is still sore that Koobee Wublee in 2006 could
pin-point exactly where the little professor’s mathemagic tricks lie.
That is why the little professor was still ranting his head off like a
moron then. You cannot blame Koobee Wublee in 2006 deciding to
disengage from that discussion. It was a done deal. <shrug>

> It is now well known that Thim's experiment doesn't measure
> what Thim claimed it should.

The objections raised by the Einstein Dingleberries are not about the
experimental results but Mr. Thim’s application of the Lorentz
transform in his own experiment. The little professor is indeed very
clueless. <shrug>

> From where I quote these wise words of Koobee Wublee:
> <<
> After giving Mr. Thim's experiment a few thoughts, I have to say his
> setup cannot have yielded the transverse Doppler effect. The reason is
> not the Lorentz transform but the rotating device. It acts like a
> conductor regardless if rotating or not.
> >>
>
> So what are you babbling about in the following?

Granted there might be other effects not disclosed, the experiment
can’t have yielded any transvers Doppler effect is because the Lorentz
transform is wrong. <shrug>

> But even if Thim's experiment can't have yielded the transverse
> Doppler effect, it can, according to Koobee Wublee,

> still prove SR's prediction for transverse Doppler wrong:

That is not what Koobee Wublee meant. Mr. Thim’s experiment can only

show the invalidity but not the validity of the Lorentz transform with

these null results which are not contested among self-styled
physicists --- only Mr. Thim’s applications of the Lorentz transform
are contested. <shrug>

> > In this experiment, the principle of relativity must be obeyed if the
> > analysis is based on SR. Yet, it is not to be so according to
> > Einstein Dingleberries since A to B is not the same as B to C. The
> > little professor even pointed out others who came up with the same,
> > stupid conclusion that whatever goes into an active black box must
> > come out the same where the black box is the rotating platform fully
> > capable of amplifying (blue shift) or attenuating (red shift) the
> > original signal. <shrug>
>
> It would be interesting to see what you would have put into
> the black box (no active or non linear components!) to
> make it "fully capable of amplifying (blue shift) or attenuating
> (red shift) the original signal."
> f
> _____| |_____
> | |
> | ? | Can you make f' different from f, Koobee?
> |____ ____|
> | |
> f'
>
> Would you have invoked Wilson's "tick faires" ? :-)

No trick fairies are required. In this ACTIVE black box, if the
little professor had even read Mr. Thim’s paper as what the little
professor had claimed to have done so, the little professor should
notice there is this rotating platform in the black box. Since the
rotating platform exhibits rotational energy, it is very capable of
giving part of its own energy to an input signal with the signal’s
output amplified. It is also capable of taking away part of its
energy to an input signal with the signal’s output attenuated. The
little professor obviously is no engineer. It is no wonder the little
professor cannot make it in the industries. May God really have pity
on the little professor’s students. <shrug>

> > So, it is understandable that the self-styled physicists would flock
> > all over inventing their own laws of physics at specific circumstances
> > to perpetuate their religion known as SR. Indeed very sick! <shrug>
>
> > All thanks goes to the little professor who meticulously keeps the
> > documentations to show how mystified he has been. Let s give an
> > applause to the little professor from Norway.
>
> > <applause>
>
> I second that.
> Well done, Koobee! :-)

It is sad to see a professor being such clown-like. Andro, Henry, and
hanson, please refrain from laughing at the little professor in his
sorrowful state. <folding arms>

The subject is laid to rest just like it did 6 years ago with the
little professor ranting around chasing his own tail again. The
little professor is too stupid to realize that he has been chasing his
own tail in the past few years, and he knew it too. That was why he
claimed to love chasing chickens. Now everything makes sense about
the odd behavior in this little professor. Pity! <shrug>

[Paul B. Andersen]

> Koobee Wublee in 2006 understood very clearly where the little
> professor made the mistake. 6 years later, the little professor is
> still clueless. In the discussion above, equations (1) and (4) are
> the same. Instead of equation (2), the little professor replaced it
> with equation (5) to suit his BELIEF IN SR. There is no need to quote
> his bullshit 6 years full of fermentation. A couple equations would
> easily sum up, and the little professor is too stupid to realize
> that. <shrug>

What Koobee is trying to say is that he thinks the Doppler shift
predicted by the Lorentz transform should be the same in these
two cases:

S
| wave transverse in the source frame
|
V
R -> v

S -> v
|
| wave transverse in the receiver frame
V
R

The well informed reader will know better.

> The little professor is still sore that Koobee Wublee in 2006 could
> pin-point exactly where the little professor’s mathemagic tricks lie.
> That is why the little professor was still ranting his head off like a
> moron then. You cannot blame Koobee Wublee in 2006 deciding to
> disengage from that discussion. It was a done deal. <shrug>

http://tinyurl.com/9ph8azu

http://tinyurl.com/9zc2ptm
<<
Which shows that SR predicts that the two Doppler shifts
should cancel each other.
Thus the experiment does not test the transverse
Doppler shift predicted by SR at all.

Actually, this should be rather obvious. The transmitter
and the detector are stationary to each other.
If the detector should detect a higher frequency than
is emitted by the transmitter, where should all those
extra cycles come from? If SR had predicted such a Doppler
shift, then SR would be inconsistent.

What SR does predict is that if there were a frequency
measuring device on the moving rim of the disk, then
the clock (reference oscillator) of that device
would run slow as seen from the stationary frame.
This frequency measuring device would then measure
a higher (blue shifted) frequency.

>>

<shrug>

>> It is now well known that Thim's experiment doesn't measure
>> what Thim claimed it should.

> The objections raised by the Einstein Dingleberries are not about the
> experimental results but Mr. Thim’s application of the Lorentz
> transform in his own experiment.

Quite right.
The Lorentz transform predicts that there should be no
net Doppler shift, exactly as observed.
It is indeed Thim's claim that the Lorentz transform predicts
otherwise that is wrong.

> The little professor is indeed very clueless. <shrug>
>

>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5b0e79606272c851

>> From where I quote these wise words of Koobee Wublee:
>> <<
>> After giving Mr. Thim's experiment a few thoughts, I have to say his
>> setup cannot have yielded the transverse Doppler effect. The reason is
>> not the Lorentz transform but the rotating device. It acts like a
>> conductor regardless if rotating or not.
>> >>
>>
>> So what are you babbling about in the following?
>
> Granted there might be other effects not disclosed, the experiment
> can’t have yielded any transvers Doppler effect is because the Lorentz
> transform is wrong. <shrug>

"The reason is not the Lorentz transform but the rotating device.
It acts like a conductor regardless if rotating or not."

<shrug>

>> But even if Thim's experiment can't have yielded the transverse
>> Doppler effect, it can, according to Koobee Wublee,
>> still prove SR's prediction for transverse Doppler wrong:
>
> That is not what Koobee Wublee meant. Mr. Thim’s experiment can only
> show the invalidity but not the validity of the Lorentz transform with
> these null results which are not contested among self-styled
> physicists --- only Mr. Thim’s applications of the Lorentz transform
> are contested. <shrug>

Quite.
Thim's claim that the Lorentz transform predicts a Doppler shift
is contested because it is a well known fact that the Lorentz transform
predicts a null result.
So what Koobee Wublee meant is that since the Lorentz transform predicts
what is observed, Mr. Thim’s experiment can only show
the invalidity but not the validity of the Lorentz transform.

Could you elaborate on that, please?
How would the engineer Koobee Wublee make a rotating platform
in the black box change the frequency ?

Remember that the rotating platform in Thim's experiment failed
do do what it according to Koobee Wublee is very capable of.
Mr. Thim's arrangement doesn't work, because:

" his setup cannot have yielded the transverse Doppler effect.
The reason is not the Lorentz transform but the rotating device.
It acts like a conductor regardless if rotating or not."

Well, maybe not quite like a conductor, but close enough.
It will mediate every cycle from the emitter to the receiver

regardless if rotating or not.

Good catch.

But yet, it is very capable of changing the frequency? :-)

>>> So, it is understandable that the self-styled physicists would flock
>>> all over inventing their own laws of physics at specific circumstances
>>> to perpetuate their religion known as SR. Indeed very sick! <shrug>
>>
>>> All thanks goes to the little professor who meticulously keeps the
>>> documentations to show how mystified he has been. Let s give an
>>> applause to the little professor from Norway.
>>
>>> <applause>
>>
>> I second that.
>> Well done, Koobee! :-)

You are so funny when you try to compensate for your lack of
rational arguments with tirades like this: :-)

> It is sad to see a professor being such clown-like. Andro, Henry, and
> hanson, please refrain from laughing at the little professor in his
> sorrowful state. <folding arms>
> The subject is laid to rest just like it did 6 years ago with the
> little professor ranting around chasing his own tail again. The
> little professor is too stupid to realize that he has been chasing his
> own tail in the past few years, and he knew it too. That was why he
> claimed to love chasing chickens. Now everything makes sense about
> the odd behavior in this little professor. Pity! <shrug>

The little professor will chase Koobee's tail again:

Here is what the little professor wrote about
transverse Doppler shift in 2006:

phi is the angle between the wave vector and

the velocity vector in the source frame S.

phi' is the angle between the wave vector and

the velocity vector in the observer frame S'.

The relation between these angles is:
cos(phi') = (cos(phi) - v/c)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))
or:
cos(phi) = (cos(phi') + v/c)/(1 + (v/c)*cos(phi'))
This is aberration.

f is the frequency of the emitted wave in S
f' is the frequency of the received wave in S'

The Doppler shift is:

f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

or
f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 + (v/c)*cos(phi'))

Now, if the source is stationary in S, and the observer
is stationary in S' we can conclude:

If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
in the source frame S, then phi = pi/2, and the observed Doppler shift
will be:

f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
This is a blue shift

If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector

in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2,

and the observed Doppler shift will be:

f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 + (v/c)*cos(phi'))=f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

This is a red shift.

Koobee Wublee called this gibberish in 2006,
and then he laid the subject to rest.

In 2012, this was what he had to say about it:

| Now, do you remember that gross blunder of yours on
| waves? What was that about? Maybe you can point out how you put your
| foot in your mouth on that one. Or Koobee Wublee vaguely remembers
| something about you trying to create your own laws of physics on
| transverse Doppler shift. Maybe you can point out where you try to
| play God again. <shrug> Koobee Wublee couldn’t wait. Koobee Wublee
| is holding His breath. So don’t let Koobee Wublee wait too long,
| ok?

But why did you call it gibberish when you have failed
to point out an error in it, Koobee?

I think you will have to snip this and flee the subject again.

But maybe you can remind me of your failure in 6 years time?

--
Paul, the little professor having fun

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

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 11, "Paul B. Andersen" the little professor wrote:
> On 11.10.2012 18:47, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Koobee Wublee in 2006 understood very clearly where the little
> > professor made the mistake. 6 years later, the little professor is
> > still clueless. In the discussion above, equations (1) and (4) are
> > the same. Instead of equation (2), the little professor replaced it
> > with equation (5) to suit his BELIEF IN SR. There is no need to quote
> > his bullshit 6 years full of fermentation. A couple equations would
> > easily sum up, and the little professor is too stupid to realize
> > that. <shrug>
>

> [barking]

The case is closed. Does any other Einstein Dingleberry even care
about what the little professor is bitching about? After all he is
busy chasing after his own tail and barking at the same time. In the
meantime, let Koobee Wublee lay the whole thing to rest for the ones
who are interested.

A simplified model of Mr. Thim’s experiment goes like this. Point A
transmits a signal to Point B. Point B receives the signal and
retransmits it to Point C. Point C receives the signal from Point B.
Point A and C are stationary to each other while Point B is moving in
a transverse direction as observed by both Point A and C. Mr. Thim
discovered not a trace of Doppler shift in frequency at Point C.

http://tinyurl.com/9ph8azu

Part I. What does the Galilean transform predict?

Since RF signal can never be point like, there are four possibilities:

1) Transverse in A’s frame and transverse in B as transmitter

** f_B = f_A (1 - [B_AB] * [B_AL])
** f_C = f_B (1 - [B_BC] * [B_BL])

And

** f_C = f_A <--- No Doppler shift

Where

** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver

** [B_BC] * [B_BL] = 0, where B = transmitter, C = receiver
** [B_AB] c = Velocity of B as observed by A

** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

2) Transverse in A’s frame and transverse in C

** f_B = f_A (1 - [B_AB] * [B_AL])
** f_B = f_C (1 - [B_CB] * [B_CL])

And

** f_C = f_A <--- No Doppler shift

Where

** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver

** [B_CB] * [B_CL] = 0, where B = transmitter, C = receiver

3) Transverse in B as receiver and transverse in C

** f_A = f_B (1 - [B_BA] * [B_BL])
** f_B = f_C (1 - [B_CB] * [B_CL])

And

** f_C = f_A <--- No Doppler shift

Where

** [B_BA] * [B_BL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
** [B_CB] * [B_CL] = 0, where B = transmitter, C = receiver

4) Transverse in B both as receiver and transmitter

** f_A = f_B (1 - [B_BA] * [B_BL])
** f_C = f_B (1 - [B_BC] * [B_BL])

And

** f_C = f_A <--- No Doppler shift

Where

** [B_BA] * [B_BL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
** [B_BC] * [B_BL] = 0, where B = transmitter, C = receiver

In all these cases, the Galilean transform exhibits not a hint of any
transverse Doppler shift.

Part II. What does the Lorentz transform predict?

1) Transverse in A’s frame and transverse in B as transmitter

** f_B = f_A (1 - [B_AB] * [B_AL]) / sqrt(1 - B_AB^2)
** f_C = f_B (1 - [B_BC] * [B_BL]) / sqrt(1 - B_BC^2)

And

** f_C = f_A / (1 - B_AB^2) <--- Blue shift

Where

** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver

** [B_BC] * [B_BL] = 0, where B = transmitter, C = receiver
** B_AB^2 = B_BA^2 = B_BC^2 = B_CB^2

2) Transverse in A’s frame and transverse in C

** f_B = f_A (1 - [B_AB] * [B_AL]) / sqrt(1 - B_AB^2)
** f_B = f_C (1 - [B_CB] * [B_CL]) / sqrt(1 - B_CB^2)

And

** f_C = f_A <--- No Doppler shift

Where

** [B_AB] * [B_AL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver

** [B_CB] * [B_CL] = 0, where B = transmitter, C = receiver

3) Transverse in B as receiver and transverse in C

** f_A = f_B (1 - [B_BA] * [B_BL]) / sqrt(1 - B_BA^2)
** f_B = f_C (1 - [B_CB] * [B_CL]) / sqrt(1 - B_CB^2)

And

** f_C = f_A (1 - B_AB^2) <--- Red shift

Where

** [B_BA] * [B_BL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
** [B_CB] * [B_CL] = 0, where B = transmitter, C = receiver

4) Transverse in B both as receiver and transmitter

** f_A = f_B (1 - [B_BA] * [B_BL]) / sqrt(1 - B_BA^2)
** f_C = f_B (1 - [B_BC] * [B_BL]) / sqrt(1 - B_BC^2)

And

** f_C = f_A <--- No Doppler shift

Where

** [B_BA] * [B_BL] = 0, where A = transmitter, B = receiver
** [B_BC] * [B_BL] = 0, where B = transmitter, C = receiver

So, according to SR, only 50% of the time there is no Doppler shift
with 25% blue and 25% red shift. If so, Mr. Thim will pick up some
sorts of Doppler shift as an incoherent pattern, and he did not.
Thus, the Lorentz transform must be wrong as predicted by Koobee
Wublee. <shrug>

In the meantime, the little professor is still chasing his tail
barking, whining, and ranting. He is just too sore to be any
coherency himself. Ahahahaha... Oops! Excuse Him, didn’t Koobee
Wublee urge all not to knock the little professor down further? :-)

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

news:a9ec31b3-51bc-4e23...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 11, "Paul B. Andersen" the little professor wrote:
> On 11.10.2012 18:47, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Koobee Wublee in 2006 understood very clearly where the little
> > professor made the mistake. 6 years later, the little professor is
> > still clueless. In the discussion above, equations (1) and (4) are
> > the same. Instead of equation (2), the little professor replaced it
> > with equation (5) to suit his BELIEF IN SR. There is no need to quote
> > his bullshit 6 years full of fermentation. A couple equations would
> > easily sum up, and the little professor is too stupid to realize
> > that. <shrug>
>
> [barking]

The case is closed. Does any other Einstein Dingleberry even care
about what the little professor is bitching about? After all he is
busy chasing after his own tail and barking at the same time. In the
meantime, let Koobee Wublee lay the whole thing to rest for the ones
who are interested.

A simplified model of Mr. Thim’s experiment goes like this. Point A
transmits a signal to Point B. Point B receives the signal and
retransmits it to Point C. Point C receives the signal from Point B.
Point A and C are stationary to each other while Point B is moving in
a transverse direction as observed by both Point A and C. Mr. Thim
discovered not a trace of Doppler shift in frequency at Point C.

http://tinyurl.com/9ph8azu

Part I. What does the Galilean transform predict?

__________________________________________
Excellent idea. Set up an experiment where the Galilean and SR transforms
produce measurably different results, and see which one is correct. But that
was done yesterday. There are probably in excess of 100 particle
accelerators world-wide which can accelerate particles to 99% of the speed
of light. Every one of these would have failed to work yesterday if the
particles being accelerated used the Galilean transform; all particle
accelerator designs assume Lorentz. And of course there are a great many
others as well. By all means calculate what the Galilean transform predicts,
and what the Lorentz transform predicts, and then run an experiment to see
which is correct. By all means report back to this newsgroup if you find
experimental evidence that the Galilean transform is correct and the Lorentz
incorrect (you can do that on the way to picking up your Nobel Prize).

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 11, 11:12 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

> > The case is closed. Does any other Einstein Dingleberry even care
> > about what the little professor is bitching about? After all he is
> > busy chasing after his own tail and barking at the same time. In the
> > meantime, let Koobee Wublee lay the whole thing to rest for the ones
> > who are interested.
>
> > A simplified model of Mr. Thim s experiment goes like this. Point A
> > transmits a signal to Point B. Point B receives the signal and
> > retransmits it to Point C. Point C receives the signal from Point B.
> > Point A and C are stationary to each other while Point B is moving in
> > a transverse direction as observed by both Point A and C. Mr. Thim
> > discovered not a trace of Doppler shift in frequency at Point C.
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/9ph8azu
>
> > Part I. What does the Galilean transform predict?

> Excellent idea. Set up an experiment where the Galilean and SR transforms
> produce measurably different results, and see which one is correct. But that
> was done yesterday. There are probably in excess of 100 particle
> accelerators world-wide which can accelerate particles to 99% of the speed
> of light. Every one of these would have failed to work yesterday if the
> particles being accelerated used the Galilean transform;

That only means the Galilean transform is not adequate as a
mathematical model of physics at more extreme boundary conditions.
<shrug>

> all particle accelerator designs assume Lorentz.

Here is where peter webb fvcked up. There are an infinite
mathematical models also satisfy any experimentations that validate
the Lorentz transform. Guess what? All these other transforms say
the Aether must exist. All these transforms also predict what the
accelerators observe. <shrug>

> And of course there are a great many
> others as well. By all means calculate what the Galilean transform predicts,
> and what the Lorentz transform predicts, and then run an experiment to see
> which is correct. By all means report back to this newsgroup if you find
> experimental evidence that the Galilean transform is correct and the Lorentz
> incorrect (you can do that on the way to picking up your Nobel Prize).

You are correct. The idiots who still believe in the Galilean
transform such as Andro would have no chance of winning the Nobel
Prize. Amazingly, at least, we have agreed on one thing. <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

news:542a554b-12a4-4177...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

______________________________________________________
No it doesn't. Are you ignorant of basic logic? It also proves that the
Lorentz transforms are correct for "extreme boundary conditions", as the
particle accelerators demonstrably work when built using the Lorentz
transform.

> all particle accelerator designs assume Lorentz.

Here is where peter webb fvcked up. There are an infinite
mathematical models also satisfy any experimentations that validate
the Lorentz transform.

________________________________________
No. Tell me the mathematical models other than Lorentz which are consistent
with the Hafele-Kealing experiment. If they produce different results to
Lorentz then they are wrong; if they produce the same answers as Lorentz
they are the same model. Lets see which category your calculations of the
time change in Hafele-Keating belongs to. Go for it.

Guess what? All these other transforms say
the Aether must exist. All these transforms also predict what the
accelerators observe. <shrug>

____________________________________________________
No they don't. If they did produce the same answers as the Lorentz
transformation, they are the same transform as Lorentz. But you claim they
are different. You need to show the equations of motion of a particle in a
particle accelerator using some other transform, show that it produces a
different result (so it is demonstrably a different transform) and then show
your result is a more accurate model of what happens in a particle
accelerator. Lots of luck.

> And of course there are a great many
> others as well. By all means calculate what the Galilean transform
> predicts,
> and what the Lorentz transform predicts, and then run an experiment to see
> which is correct. By all means report back to this newsgroup if you find
> experimental evidence that the Galilean transform is correct and the
> Lorentz
> incorrect (you can do that on the way to picking up your Nobel Prize).

You are correct. The idiots who still believe in the Galilean
transform such as Andro would have no chance of winning the Nobel
Prize. Amazingly, at least, we have agreed on one thing. <shrug>

___________________________________________________
You seem to think that SR "disproved" the existence of the ether. It did no
such thing. It simply left no role for the ether, and in particular no way
for its velocity to be measured. This is consistent with the Galilean
principle of relativity. If you think that the ether exists and has a
relative velocity, you need to design an experiment which can measure it, or
else it has as much evidence for its existence as do Unicorns. Should you
find experimental evidence for the existence of the ether or for the
existence of Unicorns, you should post it to this newsgroup. You can do this
on the way to picking up your second Nobel Prize.

[Paul B. Andersen]

I note that you yet again have snipped everything I said
about transverse Doppler shift, without even trying to
explain why you called it gibberish.

The reason is obvious.

On 12.10.2012 07:49, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> The case is closed.

OK.

--
Paul

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

[Mahipal]

On Friday, October 12, 2012 2:12:52 AM UTC-4, Peter Webb wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
>
> news:a9ec31b3-51bc-4e23...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Oct 11, "Paul B. Andersen" the little professor wrote:
>
> > On 11.10.2012 18:47, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Koobee Wublee in 2006 understood very clearly where the little
> > > professor made the mistake. 6 years later, the little professor is
> > > still clueless. In the discussion above, equations (1) and (4) are
> > > the same. Instead of equation (2), the little professor replaced it
> > > with equation (5) to suit his BELIEF IN SR. There is no need to quote
> > > his bullshit 6 years full of fermentation. A couple equations would
> > > easily sum up, and the little professor is too stupid to realize
> > > that. <shrug>
>
> > [barking]
>
> The case is closed. Does any other Einstein Dingleberry even care
> about what the little professor is bitching about? After all he is
> busy chasing after his own tail and barking at the same time. In the
> meantime, let Koobee Wublee lay the whole thing to rest for the ones
> who are interested.
>

> A simplified model of Mr. Thim�s experiment goes like this. Point A

> transmits a signal to Point B. Point B receives the signal and
> retransmits it to Point C. Point C receives the signal from Point B.
> Point A and C are stationary to each other while Point B is moving in
> a transverse direction as observed by both Point A and C. Mr. Thim
> discovered not a trace of Doppler shift in frequency at Point C.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9ph8azu
>
> Part I. What does the Galilean transform predict?
>
> __________________________________________
>
> Excellent idea. Set up an experiment where the Galilean and SR transforms
> produce measurably different results, and see which one is correct. But that
> was done yesterday. There are probably in excess of 100 particle
> accelerators world-wide which can accelerate particles to 99% of the speed
> of light. Every one of these would have failed to work yesterday if the
> particles being accelerated used the Galilean transform; all particle
> accelerator designs assume Lorentz. And of course there are a great many
> others as well. By all means calculate what the Galilean transform predicts,
> and what the Lorentz transform predicts, and then run an experiment to see
> which is correct. By all means report back to this newsgroup if you find
> experimental evidence that the Galilean transform is correct and the Lorentz
> incorrect (you can do that on the way to picking up your Nobel Prize).

There are only 100 Nobel Prizes per Century. Taunt yourself with one.

Can you please rephrase or clarify this your line:

"Every one of these would have failed to work yesterday if the
particles being accelerated used the Galilean transform; all particle

accelerator designs assume Lorentz.''

Particles just travel. Data is just recorded, observed. Your phrasing
projects a presumed bias that de facto implies the Stage is Fixed.

Particle Accelerators are slowly built devices. Experiments just
happen. Designers are not moving at any speed, other than in the those
fast forwarded LHC construction movie clips. Are not the Accelerators
built independent of any multitude of Transformation Theories, as Math
allows, that ought inexplicably be simultaneously tested?

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Mahipal" <mahip...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b1658da2-d37a-4d5c...@googlegroups.com...

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

 

The Galilean transformation give the position of my pen clip as

3” inches from the ball point as it slides across my desk.  Where

I to slide the pen at 0.866 * the speed of light my pen clip would

be 6” from the ball point according to Einstein and 1.5” from the

ball point according to Lorentz. Magic. 

What is even more amusing is the extreme precision of the GPS

satellite constellation which loses (or gains, I forget which) time

at a rate of 38 microseconds per day according to GR “experts”

such as Webb, and after 30 years of service is 38 * 365.25 * 30

= 0.41685

seconds out of kilter with GMT and 5 hours and a half second

out of kilter with EST whilst a billion satnav receivers and cell

phones have no atomic clock or are not set to the correct local

time anyway. Magic.

 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm

What to do in a world where the majority are either insane or

Neanderthals?

 

[Peter Webb]

"Mahipal" wrote in message
news:b1658da2-d37a-4d5c...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, October 12, 2012 2:12:52 AM UTC-4, Peter Webb wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
>
> news:a9ec31b3-51bc-4e23...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Oct 11, "Paul B. Andersen" the little professor wrote:
>
> > On 11.10.2012 18:47, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Koobee Wublee in 2006 understood very clearly where the little
> > > professor made the mistake. 6 years later, the little professor is
> > > still clueless. In the discussion above, equations (1) and (4) are
> > > the same. Instead of equation (2), the little professor replaced it
> > > with equation (5) to suit his BELIEF IN SR. There is no need to quote
> > > his bullshit 6 years full of fermentation. A couple equations would
> > > easily sum up, and the little professor is too stupid to realize
> > > that. <shrug>
>
> > [barking]
>
> The case is closed. Does any other Einstein Dingleberry even care
> about what the little professor is bitching about? After all he is
> busy chasing after his own tail and barking at the same time. In the
> meantime, let Koobee Wublee lay the whole thing to rest for the ones
> who are interested.
>

> A simplified model of Mr. Thim�s experiment goes like this. Point A

___________________________________________________________
Certainly. If the Galilean transform held true at high speeds, and
velocities were additive, the relationship E = 0.5 x m x v^2 would continue
to hold at high speeds. The energy poured into particles (E) would result in
a velocity (v) exceeding the speed of light by many times. But we can (and
do) directly measure the speed of particles in a cyclotron, and they are
just less than c. If they were travelling faster than this, they would not
be held in place by the magnetic field of the cyclotron and would hit the
walls instead of the targets.

Particles just travel. Data is just recorded, observed. Your phrasing
projects a presumed bias that de facto implies the Stage is Fixed.

Particle Accelerators are slowly built devices. Experiments just
happen. Designers are not moving at any speed, other than in the those
fast forwarded LHC construction movie clips. Are not the Accelerators
built independent of any multitude of Transformation Theories, as Math
allows, that ought inexplicably be simultaneously tested?

_________________________________________________________
Nope. They are built using the equations of Relativity, or else they
wouldn't work.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:k5ajl4$gei$1...@news.albasani.net...

Certainly. If the Galilean transform held true at high speeds, and
velocities were additive, the relationship E = 0.5 x m x v^2 would continue
to hold at high speeds. The energy poured into particles (E) would result in
a velocity (v) exceeding the speed of light by many times.

 

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

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 11, 11:57 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

> > That only means the Galilean transform is not adequate as a
> > mathematical model of physics at more extreme boundary conditions.
> > <shrug>
>

> No it doesn't. Are you ignorant of basic logic? It also proves that the
> Lorentz transforms are correct for "extreme boundary conditions", as the
> particle accelerators demonstrably work when built using the Lorentz
> transform.

There are also the infinite numbers of transforms that say the Aether
must exist. They all satisfy the experimental results of the
accelerators. peter webb is indeed ignorant. <shrug>

> > Here is where peter webb fvcked up. There are an infinite
> > mathematical models also satisfy any experimentations that validate
> > the Lorentz transform.
>

> No. Tell me the mathematical models other than Lorentz which are consistent
> with the Hafele-Kealing experiment.

God damn it! You have been told by Koobee Wublee many times. Check
out the Voigt transform. Check the work of Larmor. Check the work of
Lorentz. <shrug>

> [rest of trolling bullshit snipped unread]

Does any other Einstein Dingleberry care about what peter webb the
troll, the prostitute, and the liar squeaking? <guess not>

[Mahipal]

On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:28:53 PM UTC-4, Peter Webb wrote:
> "Mahipal" wrote in message
>
> news:b1658da2-d37a-4d5c...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Friday, October 12, 2012 2:12:52 AM UTC-4, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> > "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
>

[trim]

> > Part I. What does the Galilean transform predict?
> > __________________________________________
>
> > Excellent idea. Set up an experiment where the Galilean and SR transforms
> > produce measurably different results, and see which one is correct. But
> > that
> > was done yesterday. There are probably in excess of 100 particle
> > accelerators world-wide which can accelerate particles to 99% of the speed
> > of light. Every one of these would have failed to work yesterday if the
> > particles being accelerated used the Galilean transform; all particle
> > accelerator designs assume Lorentz. And of course there are a great many
> > others as well. By all means calculate what the Galilean transform
> > predicts,
> > and what the Lorentz transform predicts, and then run an experiment to see
> > which is correct. By all means report back to this newsgroup if you find
> > experimental evidence that the Galilean transform is correct and the
> > Lorentz
> > incorrect (you can do that on the way to picking up your Nobel Prize).

Who_said_what is difficult to attribute given Google's recent
downgrade of its Usenet SW as a UseLess Service. So assign your own
Authors to the lines you read. I know, I know, why use Google@all. Oy.

>> There are only 100 Nobel Prizes per Century. Taunt yourself with one.
>>
>> Can you please rephrase or clarify this your line:
>
>> "Every one of these would have failed to work yesterday if the
>> particles being accelerated used the Galilean transform; all particle
>> accelerator designs assume Lorentz.''
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> Certainly. If the Galilean transform held true at high speeds, and
> velocities were additive, the relationship E = 0.5 x m x v^2 would continue
> to hold at high speeds. The energy poured into particles (E) would result in
> a velocity (v) exceeding the speed of light by many times. But we can (and
> do) directly measure the speed of particles in a cyclotron, and they are
> just less than c. If they were travelling faster than this, they would not
> be held in place by the magnetic field of the cyclotron and would hit the
> walls instead of the targets.
>
>> Particles just travel. Data is just recorded, observed. Your phrasing
>> projects a presumed bias that de facto implies the Stage is Fixed.
>>
>> Particle Accelerators are slowly built devices. Experiments just
>> happen. Designers are not moving at any speed, other than in the those
>> fast forwarded LHC construction movie clips. Are not the Accelerators
>> built independent of any multitude of Transformation Theories, as Math
>> allows, that ought inexplicably be simultaneously tested?
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Nope. They are built using the equations of Relativity, or else they
> wouldn't work.

Nope what? What of testing other Transformation Theories? Please be
more crafty with your writing, if not precise. If builders bias the
devices when built, then what's the point in testing anything?

If possible, do provide some references that demonstrate Particle
Accelerators are built using the equations of Relativity, whether
they==PAs work or not. Anyone else got links? Tia.

When Experiments happen in Nature, all Theories are being Tested.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Mahipal" <mahip...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:62b30272-c2ca-43fe...@googlegroups.com...

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

If bicycles didn’t have elliptical wheels they wouldn’t work

properly and cause the rider rise and fall as he did on a horse.

Same with cyclotrons.

The eccentricity of an ellipse is

e = sqrt(1-b^2/a^2)

The eccentricity of relativity is

gamma = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).