Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :

On 26-Aug-23 11:59 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

By being indoctrinated in an ideology.

Why can't they defend that with reason?

Because they weren't persuaded by reason.

Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if >>> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then. >>>
Sylvia.

It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the endorsement
of Minkowski and his
mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made relativity a
"respectable" theory.

As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with Poincaré,
Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of
4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then.

After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential geometry
(Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert),
the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS, not
physicists.

Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible imbeciles, with
his stupid manipulation OF TIME.

All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF MOVING FAST.
That was THE TICKET.

I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH
CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but
TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles that >> followed it as relativists).

More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID >> (99.99% of them).

Are you within the 0.01%?

What you seem to miss in the above is that mathematics can only describe models that could represent the universe. It can describe many such
models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes physics to determine which model is the correct one.

Sylvia.

Not necessarily.

If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel
(3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite similar.
But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it differs.

We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.

The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I think,
as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions are the
same.

Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR
equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.

They therefore have no chance of being true. None.

We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.

I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in
apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that they
no longer understood anything.

In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.

The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what he
was talking about.

A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).

https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler...

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 27/08/2023 à 15:19, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

On 2023-08-27 13:11:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :

On 26-Aug-23 11:59 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

By being indoctrinated in an ideology.

Why can't they defend that with reason?

Because they weren't persuaded by reason.

Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if >>>>> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can >>>>> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.

Sylvia.

It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the
endorsement of Minkowski and his
mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made
relativity a "respectable" theory.

As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with
Poincaré, Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of
4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then. >>>>
After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential
geometry (Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert),
the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS, not >>>> physicists.

Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible
imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME.

All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF
MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET.

I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH
CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but
TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles
that followed it as relativists).

More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE
STUPID (99.99% of them).

Are you within the 0.01%?

What you seem to miss in the above is that mathematics can only
describe models that could represent the universe. It can describe many
such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes
physics to determine which model is the correct one.

Sylvia.

Not necessarily.

If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel
(3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite
similar.
But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it
differs.

We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.

The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I
think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions
are the same.

Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR
equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.

They therefore have no chance of being true. None.

We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.

I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in
apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that
they no longer understood anything.

In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.

The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what
he was talking about.

A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).


https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler...

So your humour, such as it is, rivals the level of stupidity of your
posts. Quelle surprise.

Oui, je sais, je suis magnifique.

El Magnifico.

En espagnol.

Tu parles espagnol, toi?

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 27/08/2023 à 16:21, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

On 2023-08-27 13:21:08 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler...

So your humour, such as it is, rivals the level of stupidity of your
posts. Quelle surprise.

Oui, je sais, je suis magnifique.

El Magnifico.

En espagnol.

Tu parles espagnol, toi?

Oui. Tu as oublié l'accent aigu de magnífico.

Ah oui, tu parles espagnol.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 28/08/2023 à 02:17, Sylvia Else a écrit :

I see that you're adopting the standard crank practice of introducing non-standard abbreviations, which you do not define, and then proceeding
to use them in the apparent expectation that people will know what you mean.

Sylvia.

Sylvia, you are delightful, and I greatly appreciate your insightful
advice.
But I assure you that I do my best to:
1. never use abstract or ambiguous words.
2. use the same terms as the others when I think they are justified.

I was recently talking about the term "transverse Doppler effect" used by physicists. I find this term equivocal, because this effect is clearly omnidirectional. It is due not to the angle of approach, which plays no
role in it, but to pure relative speed. It would be more accurate to speak
of the "internal Doppler effect".

This is called the relativistic gamma factor by the way.

I only want to modify small things (by more than three or four moreover)
at the level of the appellations.

I am sometimes criticized for using terms that were widely used by
relativist scientists long before I was born.

Like for example the term "barycentric relativistic frame of reference" or
the term "apparent velocity of an object, particle, or rocket".

But no, these terms already exist. I only use very concrete and
understandable concepts.

The only term that I use and which can, indeed, pose a problem is that of anisochrony. The reader can say "what the hell is that?"

But all the other things are already known to everyone, and the unknown
terms can be deduced from themselves, such as the term "relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches by change of frame of reference".

If someone tells me "I don't understand", it's probably because he didn't
do anything to understand.

We are talking here about a phenomenon known to all, and which is the way
in which the
clocks internal mechanism measures time.
That is To'=To/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

So don't worry Sylvia, I'm the most concrete and "baby step" of men. If I sometimes use a new term, it's because it's absolutely necessary for the
song.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)