Abuse of Scientific Methods

[Koobee Wublee]

Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of scientific
method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and
discussion, but please don’t let that intimidate you. If you think
Feynman is wrong on the process leading to scientific methods, please
do explain how. If not, please continue. <shrug>

Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds all
experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat is
exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. <shrug>

Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and urge
everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not done. If
so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s transform,
and infinite others do also satisfy in every single experimental
result that validates SR including satisfying the null results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled physicists have
studied beyond the textbooks, they would have realized these
transformations other than SR say the absolute frame of reference must
exist which make them the antitheses to SR. <shrug>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations

IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES. Thus,
bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its antitheses is
just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY, SR HAS NEVER BEEN
VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. <shrug>

Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very afraid of
going there. <shrug>

Koobee Wublee tried to publish this post at sci.physics.research but
encountered rejection with explanation below. <shrug>

- - -

Your posting is inappropriate for sci.physics.research since it
contradicts established empirical facts concerning the validity of the
special theory of relativity.

With kindest regards,
Hendrik van Hees.
sci.physics.research co-moderator
Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies
D-60438 Frankfurt am Main
http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/

- - -

Basically, the post will destroy the religion of SR. <shrug>

Is there any doubt that the Orwellian philosophy is well indoctrinated
among the self-styled physicists?

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONSPIRACY IS PEER
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> However, studying is what they have not done. If

> so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor�s transform,

> and infinite others do also satisfy in every single experimental
> result that validates SR including satisfying the null results of the
> Michelson-Morley experiment.

bullshit. back up your ridiculous statement.
if you don't, then you will be known forever as the man who makes
ridiculous statements without backup.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jun 5, 10:21 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of
> > scientific method?
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>

> > Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
> > all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
> > is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. <shrug>
>
> > Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and

> > urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not
> > done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s

> > transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
> > experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null

> > results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
> > physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
> > realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
> > of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
> > <shrug>
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
> > Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
> > antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
> > SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. <shrug>
>
> > Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
> > different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
> > predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
> > explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
> > afraid of going there. <shrug>
>

> bullshit. back up your ridiculous statement.
> if you don't, then you will be known forever as the man who makes
> ridiculous statements without backup.

Already backed up in the section where PD aka absolutely imbecile had
snipped. You need to study for a change instead of ranting about
garbage. <shrug>

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 6/5/2013 1:22 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:21 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
>> On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>

>>> Does anyone object to Richard Feynman�s definition of

>>> scientific method?
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>>
>>> Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
>>> all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
>>> is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. <shrug>
>>
>>> Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
>>> urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not

>>> done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor�s

>>> transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
>>> experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
>>> results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
>>> physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
>>> realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
>>> of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
>>> <shrug>
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>>
>>> IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
>>> Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
>>> antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
>>> SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. <shrug>
>>
>>> Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
>>> different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
>>> predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
>>> explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
>>> afraid of going there. <shrug>
>>
>> bullshit. back up your ridiculous statement.
>> if you don't, then you will be known forever as the man who makes
>> ridiculous statements without backup.
>
> Already backed up in the section where PD aka absolutely imbecile had
> snipped. You need to study for a change instead of ranting about
> garbage. <shrug>
>

bullshit again. nothing in your post nor in the wikipedia article you
reference provided any -- repeat, any -- demonstration that the other
transforms are consistent with 'every single experimental result that
validates sr'.

so far, you are working hard to be known forever as the man who makes
ridiculous statements without backup.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jun 5, 11:37 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of

> > scientific method?
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>
> > Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
> > all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
> > is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. <shrug>
>
> > Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
> > urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not

> > done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s

> > transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
> > experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
> > results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
> > physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
> > realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
> > of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
> > <shrug>
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
> > Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
> > antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
> > SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. <shrug>
>
> > Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
> > different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
> > predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
> > explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
> > afraid of going there. <shrug>
>

> bullshit again. nothing in your post nor in the wikipedia article you
> reference provided any -- repeat, any -- demonstration that the other
> transforms are consistent with 'every single experimental result that
> validates sr'.

So, basically if it can be shown that all experimental verifications
to SR also verify the antitheses to SR, the self-styled physicists
will have to accept that SR has never been verified through
experimentations. Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? <shrug>

> so far, you are working hard to be known forever as the man who makes
> ridiculous statements without backup.

If you want to deny the fact that so far any experiments have not
uniquely verified SR, that is entirely your problem and yours only.
Tom already knows that given today’s technology, SR and its antitheses
are indistinguishable despite drastically different in mathematics.
<shrug>

At this stage, Koobee Wublee rests. PD aka absolutely imbecile is
indeed an absolute idiot. :-)

[Absolutely Vertical]

it will show that sr has not been singled out as a superior model over
the other ones, yes.

> Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? <shrug>

not likely. you haven't demonstrated anything yet.

>
>> so far, you are working hard to be known forever as the man who makes
>> ridiculous statements without backup.
>
> If you want to deny the fact that so far any experiments have not
> uniquely verified SR, that is entirely your problem and yours only.

aha, so you don't have any backup to your ridiculous statement. not a
surprise.

> Tom already knows that given today’s technology, SR and its antitheses
> are indistinguishable despite drastically different in mathematics.
> <shrug>

bullshit. and you are now forever known as the guy who makes ridiculous
statements without backup.

>

[hanson]

Fatso was "Absolutely Vertical" <absolutel...@gmail.com>
honest about his tripe which he said was "bullshit".
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, kudos for your introspection and admission.
>
PS:
Koobee Wublee, it was hilarious how you took
Fatso down... AHAHAHAHAHA....ROTFLMAO
>
Fatso, don't get angry, cry too hard or for too long.
KW has rescued many Einstein Dingleberries from
worshipping Albert's sphincter, who were far more
passionately misguided fanatics than you are.
Be grateful, apologize and thank KW now.

[Koobee Wublee]

> > Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? <shrug>
>
> not likely. you haven't demonstrated anything yet.

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

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae

> > If you want to deny the fact that so far any experiments have not
> > uniquely verified SR, that is entirely your problem and yours only.
>

> [rest of repeating rants snipped]

[Bruce Sinclair]

In article <9b4b96b6-1b8c-4d6c...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Does anyone object to Richard Feynman=92s definition of scientific
>method?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEYPapE-3FRw

>
>Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and

>discussion, but please don=92t let that intimidate you. If you think

>Feynman is wrong on the process leading to scientific methods, please
>do explain how.

It's well defined in many places. No further definitions are necessary, and
I sure don't need to watch a video on the subject. :)

[hanson]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 5, 1:43 pm, Fatso Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Does anyone object to Richard Feynman�s definition of

> > scientific method?
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>
> > Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
> > all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
> > is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. <shrug>
>
> > Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
> > urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not

> > done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor�s

> > transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
> > experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
> > results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
> > physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
> > realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
> > of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
> > <shrug>
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
> > Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
> > antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
> > SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. <shrug>
>
> > Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
> > different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
> > predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
> > explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
> > afraid of going there. <shrug>
>
> > Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? <shrug>
>
> not likely. you haven't demonstrated anything yet.

KW wrote:
Koobee Wublee does not have to demonstrate the experimental results
produced by the self-styled physicists. Tom has already acknowledged

that SR and its antitheses are indistinguishable given today�s
technology. <shrug>

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae
>
hanson wrote:
KW, one of the highlights in your link above are the comments
when "Fatso" rolled around & called himself "Big Dog"
as seen in example:...

Big Dog"'s Dawgshit also omits to mention that Roberts
already said "uncle" to KW, and then [TR:] puts it rather
eloquently, that:
>
[TR:] _ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"_, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. _____ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

they are very simple, quadratic theories,
only obfuscated by historical impediments: a)
doctor Teimennspacenn's bogus slogans about phase-spaces;
b)
belief in Pascal's absolute vacuum and c)
thereby-necessitated "newtonian rocks o'light

> .  _____  SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jun 5, 5:25 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 1:43 pm, Fatso Absolutely Testicle wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > > Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of

> > > scientific method?
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>
> > > Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
> > > all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
> > > is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR.  <shrug>
>
> > > Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
> > > urge everyone to study.  However, studying is what they have not

> > > done.  If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s

> > > transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
> > > experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
> > > results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.  If the self-styled
> > > physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
> > > realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
> > > of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > > IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
> > > Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
> > > antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous.  EFFECTIVELY,
> > > SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT.  <shrug>
>
> > > Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
> > > different.  At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
> > > predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
> > > explored by science.  Self-styled physicists seem to be very
> > > afraid of going there.  <shrug>
>
> > > Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead?  <shrug>
>
> > not likely. you haven't demonstrated anything yet.
> KW wrote:
>
> Koobee Wublee does not have to demonstrate the experimental results
> produced by the self-styled physicists.  Tom has already acknowledged

> that SR and its antitheses are indistinguishable given today’s
> technology.  <shrug>
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff...

>
> hanson wrote:
>
> KW, one of the highlights in your link above are the comments
> when "Fatso" rolled around & called himself "Big Dog"
> as seen in example:...
>
> Big Dog"'s Dawgshit also omits to mention that Roberts
> already said "uncle" to KW, and then [TR:] puts it rather
> eloquently, that:
>
> [TR:] _  "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"_, iow:
> .   ____  Relativity  is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
> .  _____  SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.

Thank you for pointing this out. Please keep up with the great works.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

it's just quadratic eqautions,
completely verified insofar as not pertinent
to a) ==
plasma physics, and b)
stringtheory.

> > .  _____  SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 6/5/2013 6:42 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jun 5, 1:43 pm, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
>> On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>

>>> Does anyone object to Richard Feynman�s definition of

>>> scientific method?
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>>
>>> Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
>>> all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
>>> is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. <shrug>
>>
>>> Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
>>> urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not

>>> done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor�s

>>> transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
>>> experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
>>> results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
>>> physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
>>> realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
>>> of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
>>> <shrug>
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>>
>>> IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
>>> Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
>>> antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
>>> SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. <shrug>
>>
>>> Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
>>> different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
>>> predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
>>> explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
>>> afraid of going there. <shrug>
>>
>>> Does Koobee Wublee see Tom sweating lead? <shrug>
>>
>> not likely. you haven't demonstrated anything yet.
>
> Koobee Wublee does not have to demonstrate the experimental results
> produced by the self-styled physicists. Tom has already acknowledged

> that SR and its antitheses are indistinguishable given today�s
> technology. <shrug>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae

don't flatter yourself. tom was not referring to the different
transforms you are referring to.

you have not backed up what you said, and you cannot.
you are sniveling that someone else backs what you say, because you
cannot, but you did not understand what he said either.

[hanson]

Fatso, are you an "Absolutely Vertical"
<absolutel...@gmail.com> fool and deaf,
not to have understood what was said below?
Fatso, get a hold of yourself, stop lamenting and
avoid to become a total & complete laughingstock.
Here, read it again:

>
KW wrote:
Koobee Wublee does not have to demonstrate the

experimental results roduced by the self-styled physicists.

Tom has already acknowledged that SR and its antitheses
are indistinguishable given today�s technology. <shrug>

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae
>

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

Big Dog"'s Dawgshit also omits to mention that Roberts
already said "uncle" to KW, and then [TR:] puts it rather
eloquently, that:
>
[TR:] _ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"_, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

koobydoobydoo has no theory, at all;
he hides behind quadratic equationary, but
is unable to express "what they mean,
the same as hahahanson, the Biggest Dingleberry, ever
to be seen in local Universe.

they are stuck in Minkowski's butttime --
poor Minkowski!

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jun 5, 6:21 pm, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of

> > scientific method?
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>
> > Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
> > all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
> > is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. <shrug>
>
> > Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
> > urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not

> > done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s

> > transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
> > experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
> > results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
> > physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
> > realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
> > of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
> > <shrug>
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
> > Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
> > antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
> > SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. <shrug>
>
> > Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
> > different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
> > predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
> > explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
> > afraid of going there. <shrug>
>

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

> > given today’s technology. <shrug>
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae
>
> > If PD aka absolutely imbecile wants to deny the fact that so far

> > any experiments have not uniquely verified SR, that is entirely

> > its problem and its only.

>
> don't flatter yourself. tom was not referring to the different
> transforms you are referring to.

Is PD aka absolutely imbecile aka the little bitch Tom’s bitch now?
Why doesn’t PD aka absolutely imbecile let Tom speak for himself?
<shrug>

> you have not backed up what you said, and you cannot.

PD aka absolutely imbecile just does not get it, Koobee Wublee is sure
that is one of the reasons why it was fired as a professor of physics
at University of Texas. <shrug>

The self-styled physicists do not study. They stopped at the Lorentz
transform without understanding how it was derived in the first
place. In doing so, they mystically attributed this divine act of
miracle to their god aka Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar, and the works prior to their god’s presence was conveniently
forgotten. On the other hand, Koobee Wublee has gone beyond the
Lorentz transform and has studied on the previous manifestations of
this transform like a true scientist should have done in the first
place. Not knowing about the existence of the antitheses to SR, they
have bet their lives on the Lorentz transform. <shrug>

The so-called co-moderator of sci.physics.research realized
immediately that if the post were to be published over there, his
“great works” on particle physics would be greatly compromised. As
predicted, he is behaving like a priest from Ancient Nile delta
attempting to desperately maintain to his elite status quo. <shrug>

Eventually, SR will be trashcanned due to its stupidity, and the self-
styled physicists’ names will be dragged in mud. If that will happen
anyway, the self-styled physicists might as well milk the system as
much as they can until they are booted out. <shrug>

A few, like Tom, would cling on to a thread of hope believing that
someday experiments will validate only SR and not its antitheses. If
they actually do their own diligence and study like what Tom has
suggested all to do, they will realize SR is just full of mathematical
inconsistencies which Koobee Wublee has addressed each one many times
over in these newsgroups. The chance of salvation by a future
experiment is indeed a pipe dream. <shrug>

How does Koobee Wublee know and understand how the self-styled
physicists think? :-)

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 6/6/2013 1:01 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jun 5, 6:21 pm, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
>> On 6/5/2013 11:25 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>

>>> Does anyone object to Richard Feynman�s definition of

>>> scientific method?
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>>
>>> Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
>>> all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
>>> is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. <shrug>
>>
>>> Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
>>> urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not

>>> done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor�s

>>> transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
>>> experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
>>> results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
>>> physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
>>> realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
>>> of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
>>> <shrug>
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>>
>>> IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
>>> Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
>>> antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
>>> SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. <shrug>
>>
>>> Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
>>> different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
>>> predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
>>> explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
>>> afraid of going there. <shrug>
>>
>>> Koobee Wublee does not have to demonstrate the experimental
>>> results produced by the self-styled physicists. Tom has already
>>> acknowledged that SR and its antitheses are indistinguishable

>>> given today�s technology. <shrug>

>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae
>>
>>> If PD aka absolutely imbecile wants to deny the fact that so far
>>> any experiments have not uniquely verified SR, that is entirely
>>> its problem and its only.
>>
>> don't flatter yourself. tom was not referring to the different
>> transforms you are referring to.
>

> Is PD aka absolutely imbecile aka the little bitch Tom�s bitch now?
> Why doesn�t PD aka absolutely imbecile let Tom speak for himself?
> <shrug>

you may have noticed that tom doesn't always respond to your foppishly
tossed gauntlet. perhaps because you have nothing really to say other
than ridiculous statements you cannot back up.

>
>> you have not backed up what you said, and you cannot.
>
> PD aka absolutely imbecile just does not get it, Koobee Wublee is sure
> that is one of the reasons why it was fired as a professor of physics
> at University of Texas. <shrug>

oh dear. sorry to have aggravated you to the point of guessing, and
doing it badly.

recall that the issue is that you made a ridiculous statement that you
cannot back up. hence you will be forever known as the guy who makes
ridiculous statements without backup. as you do throughout this
response. nice verification.

>
> The self-styled physicists do not study. They stopped at the Lorentz
> transform without understanding how it was derived in the first
> place. In doing so, they mystically attributed this divine act of
> miracle to their god aka Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the

> liar, and the works prior to their god�s presence was conveniently

> forgotten. On the other hand, Koobee Wublee has gone beyond the
> Lorentz transform and has studied on the previous manifestations of
> this transform like a true scientist should have done in the first
> place. Not knowing about the existence of the antitheses to SR, they
> have bet their lives on the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
>
> The so-called co-moderator of sci.physics.research realized
> immediately that if the post were to be published over there, his

> �great works� on particle physics would be greatly compromised. As

> predicted, he is behaving like a priest from Ancient Nile delta
> attempting to desperately maintain to his elite status quo. <shrug>
>
> Eventually, SR will be trashcanned due to its stupidity, and the self-

> styled physicists� names will be dragged in mud. If that will happen

[Thomas Heger]

Am 05.06.2013 18:25, schrieb Koobee Wublee:
> Does anyone object to Richard Feynman�s definition of scientific

> method?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>
> Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and

> discussion, but please don�t let that intimidate you. If you think

> Feynman is wrong on the process leading to scientific methods, please
> do explain how. If not, please continue.<shrug>
>
> Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds all
> experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat is
> exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR.<shrug>
>
> Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and urge
> everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not done. If

> so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor�s transform,

> and infinite others do also satisfy in every single experimental
> result that validates SR including satisfying the null results of the
> Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled physicists have
> studied beyond the textbooks, they would have realized these
> transformations other than SR say the absolute frame of reference must
> exist which make them the antitheses to SR.<shrug>
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minkowski_lightcone_lorentztransform.svg

This a Minkowski diagramm of a light cone.

If c is constant, than the term 'space' must refer to the light-cone and
not to what is called x.

We see things in our own past light cone and cannot see into the
direction called x.

Since with a Lorentz transform the 'real' direction of x changes, that
direction is not 'real' neither.

So 'space' is just an observation and that is relative. Movement does
not make trains shorter or seconds longer, but enable a view into a
different world.

The flaw of SRT is, that it depends on a preferred 'inertial' FoR. This
does not exist and we have acceleration as mayor influence on time, not
movement.

This is proven by experiments like that at the Harvard towers. Or the so
called Pioneer anomaly could be understood that way.

The 'twin paradox' could be solved that way, too, since the effect of
'time-dilation' is compensated by 'time-contraction' then (because of
deceleration).

Next flaw is the speedlimit of c, since the angle 45� (in the diagram)
refers to c and the direction x to infinite velocity.

We cannot see infinite velocity (because light moves with c). But this
does not mean, such relation do not exist.

We have in fact a spectrum of velocity, from zero to infinity. Zero is
the feature of a mass and infinity the feature of a static field. Both
combined make an atom.

Since the direction x is relative, this would mean, that matter is
'relative', too.


TH

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jun 6, 5:31 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of

> > scientific method?
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
>
> > Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds
> > all experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat
> > is exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR. <shrug>
>
> > Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and
> > urge everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not

> > done. If so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s

> > transform, and infinite others do also satisfy in every single
> > experimental result that validates SR including satisfying the null
> > results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled
> > physicists have studied beyond the textbooks, they would have
> > realized these transformations other than SR say the absolute frame
> > of reference must exist which make them the antitheses to SR.
> > <shrug>
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
>
> > IN SCIENCE, ANY HYPOTHESIS CANNOT COEXIST WITH ITS ANTITHESES.
> > Thus, bringing up any experiments that satisfy both SR and its
> > antitheses is just a waste of time and ludicrous. EFFECTIVELY,
> > SR HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY EXPERIMENT. <shrug>
>
> > Mathematically, SR and its antitheses are mutually drastically
> > different. At some boundary within the domain of applicability,
> > predictions will start to diverge, and these domains have not yet
> > explored by science. Self-styled physicists seem to be very
> > afraid of going there. <shrug>
>
> > Koobee Wublee does not have to demonstrate the experimental
> > results produced by the self-styled physicists. Tom has already
> > acknowledged that SR and its antitheses are indistinguishable

> > given today’s technology. <shrug>

>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e6f9bf6fff69aae
>
> > If PD aka absolutely imbecile wants to deny the fact that so far
> > any experiments have not uniquely verified SR, that is entirely
> > its problem and its only.
>

> you may have noticed that tom doesn't always respond to your foppishly
> tossed gauntlet. perhaps because you have nothing really to say other
> than ridiculous statements you cannot back up.

Why does Tom not reply? Because he knows he has failed as a
professional experimental physicist, and Koobee Wublee won’t let him
get away with bullshit. <shrug>

The self-styled physicists do not study. They stopped at the Lorentz
transform without understanding how it was derived in the first
place. In doing so, they mystically attributed this divine act of
miracle to their god aka Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the

liar, and the works prior to their god’s presence was conveniently

forgotten. On the other hand, Koobee Wublee has gone beyond the
Lorentz transform and has studied on the previous manifestations of
this transform like a true scientist should have done in the first
place. Not knowing about the existence of the antitheses to SR, they
have bet their lives on the Lorentz transform. <shrug>

The so-called co-moderator of sci.physics.research realized
immediately that if the post were to be published over there, his

“great works” on particle physics would be greatly compromised. As

predicted, he is behaving like a priest from Ancient Nile delta
attempting to desperately maintain to his elite status quo. <shrug>

Eventually, SR will be trashcanned due to its stupidity, and the self-

styled physicists’ names will be dragged in mud. If that will happen

anyway, the self-styled physicists might as well milk the system as
much as they can until they are booted out. <shrug>

A few, like Tom, would cling on to a thread of hope believing that
someday experiments will validate only SR and not its antitheses. If
they actually do their own diligence and study like what Tom has
suggested all to do, they will realize SR is just full of mathematical
inconsistencies which Koobee Wublee has addressed each one many times
over in these newsgroups. The chance of salvation by a future
experiment is indeed a pipe dream. <shrug>

> recall that [rest of word diarrhea snipped]

Recall that Koobee Wublee has told you that it is entirely your
problem and yours alone if you do not study. <shrug>

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 6/7/2013 1:08 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> you may have noticed that tom doesn't always respond to your foppishly
>> >tossed gauntlet. perhaps because you have nothing really to say other
>> >than ridiculous statements you cannot back up.
> Why does Tom not reply? Because he knows he has failed as a
> professional experimental physicist, and Koobee Wublee won’t let him
> get away with bullshit. <shrug>

don't flatter yourself. sometimes what you say is pitiable enough that
it doesn't warrant more than a cursory reply and some people don't think
it's even worth that.

now if you want to aggrandize that lack of response into delusions of
conquest, you go right ahead and live in your own little schizophrenic
fantasy. everyone has a right to their own mental illness, if you like it.

[Koobee Wublee]

> > Why does Tom not reply? Because he knows he has failed as a
> > professional experimental physicist, and Koobee Wublee won’t let him
> > get away with bullshit. <shrug>
>
> don't flatter yourself. sometimes what you say is pitiable enough that
> it doesn't warrant more than a cursory reply and some people don't think
> it's even worth that.

> [rest of bitching nonsense snipped]

The subject is closed. Tom and the self-styled physicists cannot
defend their version of scientific method. They send a moron (PD
absolutely imbecile) to argue their cause. <shrug>

Is there any doubt that the Orwellian philosophy is well indoctrinated
among the self-styled physicists?

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING

** NOISE IS COHERENCY