
Re: What is or is not a paradox?
Posted:
Jan 10, 2013 1:07 PM


On Jan 3, 6:07 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 2:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > 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> > > > > paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins? paradox. > > > My mathematic trick:http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html > > Koobee Wublee knows the little professor paul andersen just would not > resist to get his butt kicked again. Let?s spank more of the little > professor?s ass. Ahahaha... > > > > Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific > > > method. > > > Quite. > > It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific > > method is way beyond my mental abilities. > > Only to the little professor. Please allow Koobee Wublee to repeat > the essence of scientific method. There is nothing wrong about the > statement below. <shrug> > > ?Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus > invalidates the other, common sense says one must find experiments to > validate only one of these hypotheses.?
KW, you can never teach the willfully blind to see a rainbow.
> The exact episode is like the children?s story ?Blind men and the > elephant?. Apparently, paul is too busy chasing chickens near the > Arctic Circle that he lost the meaning of what scientific method is. > Gee! You can even take hints from children?s story books. > Ahahahaha... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant > > Please do bookmark this one. So, a few months or years down the road, > we can only again laugh at the little professor from Norway. > Ahahahaha... > > > > The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is > > > an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein > > > Dingleberry anyway? :) > > > > Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don?t > > > you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and > > > save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it. > > > Oh, still sore, eh? :) Looking for every possible opportunities to > > > get back at Koobee Wublee? <shrug> > > > Your argument are as lethal as always. > > You bet. <shrug>
Only an idiot would write what Paul did.
> > For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper: > >http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf > > thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero > > at the instant when they were colocated: > >http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8 > > On page 3 right below Figure 2, you have > > delta = (delta_A ? blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 ? B^2)
That's my favorite equation of all time! Just love it.
> Where > > ** B^2 = v^2 / c^2 > > It can easily be > > Delta_A = (delta ? blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 ? B^2) > > The bottom line is the equation describing the segment of Minkowski > spacetime using your labeling system: > > ** c^2 dt_AC^2 ? ds_AC^2 = c^2 dt_BC^2 ? ds_BC^2 > > Where > > ** ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 > > The equation can be written as follows. > > ** dt_AC^2 (1 ? B_AC^2) = dt_BC^2 (1 ? B_BC^2) > > Where > > ** B_AC c = Speed of C as observed by A > ** B_BC c = Speed of C as observed by B > > From A?s point of view trying to compare the rate of time flows with > C, B and C are the same. Thus, the equation above simplifies into the > following. > > ** dt_AB^2 (1 ? B_AB^2) = dt_BB^2 (1 ? B_BB^2) = dt_BB^2 > > Where > > ** B_AB c = Speed of B as observed by A > ** B_BB c = 0 > > On the other hand, from C?s pint of view observing A, B and A are the > same. Thus, the spacetime equation has to be interpreted differently > as the following. > > ** dt_AA^2 (1 ? B_AA^2) = dt_BA^2 (1 ? B_BA^2) = dt_AA^2 > > Where > > ** B_AA c = 0 > ** B_BA c = Speed of A as observed by B > > The only time when there is no paradox is when (B_AB = B_BA = 0). > This is what the Lorentz symmetry is all about such that there is no > special treatment on the one that is moving, and the little professor > from Norway fails miserably on this one. <SPANK> <SPANK> <SPANK> > > It is time for paul to join another paul aka sylvia, absolute dick, > little bitch, etc. better known as PD for another divine vision to > resolve the paradox  projection of proper time. Tom used to > believe in that crap, but he is now back to the first divine vision > promoted by promoted by Olivia NewtonJohn?s grandfather, Max Born. > <shrug>
Nice connection! ONJ and Born. "Have you never been mellow, have you never tried, to find the comfort, from inside..." try Dan Singh with QT's VV of Travolta fame. Sorry, I had one of those greasy free thought moments.
Actually KW, I was searching for your recent Zardoz reference, and instead, found beautiful Born Olivia. Still perusing threads...
> > And you made me aware that I in this paper: > >http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf > > had confused parallax and aberration: > >http://tinyurl.com/nje25b > > The great post of Yours Truly happened in 2008. The following excerpt > still applies today. > > ?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.? > > That original pdf paper in 2008 had the gross error of computing > aberration without using the principle of relativity. Why did you > replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of > 2008? The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor. > No wonder his is still too sore. Ahahahaha... > > > [Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped] > > <ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS>
KW... never be intimidated by theythethem ganging up on you.
Enjo(y)... Cheers!  Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.
http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/ "If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!"

