Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: What is or is not a paradox?
Replies: 22   Last Post: Jan 11, 2013 2:06 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
GogoJF

Posts: 49
Registered: 12/16/09
Re: What is or is not a paradox?
Posted: Jan 2, 2013 9:25 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Jan 2, 8:14 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 12:38 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > > [snipped SR sermons]
>
> > > At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.
>
> > > [snipped more SR scriptures]
>
> > > But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
> > > inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
> > > which aren't science.

>
> > Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
> > invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
> > to validate only one of the hypotheses.  This is scientific method.
> > Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
> > became a priest to SR long away.  Yet, these experimental
> > verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
> > verify any of the antitheses to SR.  Thus, claiming SR valid because
> > it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
> > of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
> > deceitful.  This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult.  <shrug>

>
> > Antitheses to SR are:
>
> > **  Voigt transformation
> > **  Larmor?s transformation
> > **  Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz

>
> > Each one says the Aether must exist.  Each one satisfies the null
> > results of the MMX and more.  <shrug>

>
> > The following sum up the self-styled physicists.
>
> > **          FAITH IS LOGIC
> > **          LYING IS TEACHING
> > **         DECEIT IS VALIDATION
> > **         NITWIT IS GENIUS
> > **         OCCULT IS SCIENCE
> > **        FICTION IS THEORY
> > **        FUDGING IS DERIVATION
> > **        PARADOX IS KOSHER
> > **        WORSHIP IS STUDY
> > **       BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
> > **      ARROGANCE IS SAGE
> > **      BELIEVING IS LEARNING
> > **      IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
> > **      MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
> > **      SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
> > **     CONJECTURE IS REALITY
> > **     HANDWAVING IS REASONING
> > **     PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
> > **     PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
> > **    FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
> > **    MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
> > **  INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
> > ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

>
> > <shrug>
>
> This reminds me of the Young/Forbes toothed-wheel of 1891- the toothed-
> wheel observed two line of sight light sources that were separated by
> a distance- and determined that their distances were instant and
> simultaneous through the aperture of the wheel.  This at once, created
> extreme criticism because it predicted something that was not
> anticipated like the results of the MM experiment.


It is the models which produce the philosophical paradoxes. If
Michelson would have predicted an aether- relativity would have lived
an everlasting life. But, this did not happen.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.