Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 mahipal7638@gmail.com Posts: 143 Registered: 12/1/08
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 co-located:
> >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 Newton-John?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 they-the-them 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!"