• The most ridiculous science mistake in history.

    From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 18 22:31:17 2024
    The most ridiculous science mistake in history.

    The null result of MMX disproved the ether.
    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    Showing Einstein's utter lack of comprehension of the science.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 19 17:47:58 2024
    There is absolutely no other purpose for the Lorentz Transformation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 19 20:09:04 2024
    The LT is the difference in time of the arrival of the two beams in the MMX due to the ether wind.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 20 07:11:10 2024
    W dniu 19.03.2024 oย 22:15, JanPB pisze:
    All three of your posts are incorrect.

    And poor idiot Jan is a queen of England.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Mar 20 00:15:30 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 19.03.2024 oย 22:15, JanPB pisze:
    All three of your posts are incorrect.

    And poor idiot Jan is a queen of England.

    if you go to Jan's house she has a big picture on the wall of
    herself...in queens atire.


    (photoshop of course)



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 23 23:46:27 2024
    How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 24 00:25:18 2024
    It certainly won't convince those who say, "My mind is made up,
    don't confuse me with the facts."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Larry on Sun Mar 24 02:59:13 2024
    Larry wrote:

    Gary, your opinion is so worthless to me the only reason I read it this time is because
    this new forum has so few comments so far.

    Of course it's worthless to you, because you ignore the facts. Your mind is made up and
    you don't want to be jarred into reality.

    The relativists here haven't said anything ever that would persuade a reasonable person

    Perhaps you're not a "reasonable" person. Ever think of that?

    inquiring after the truth about nature.

    But are you really doing that?

    Non-Euclidean geometry is warped.

    How so? You're not going to convince a "reasonable" person of that just by saying so.

    Nothing said by the relativists here even attempts to persuade skeptics.

    There are two kinds of "skeptics": Those who don't confront the facts and those who do
    (those who entertain fictitious" facts and those who face reality). The question is,
    what facts aren't you confronting and what fictitious facts are you entertaining?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 24 02:11:48 2024
    Gary, your opinion is so worthless to me the only reason I read it this time is because this new forum has so few comments so far. The relativists here haven't said anything ever that would persuade a reasonable person inquiring after the truth about
    nature. Non-Euclidean geometry is warped. Nothing said by the relativists here even attempts to persuade skeptics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 24 03:35:51 2024
    You have just demonstrated your utter lack of comprehension and your inability to rebut my comments with any substantive statement. The truth is that the LT correctly understood is the difference of arrival times of the two beams in the MMX IF THE ETHER
    AND ETHER WIND EXIST. Because it was not detected it had to be claimed something exactly negated it hiding it. The LT is just a calculation of that effect. To claim otherwise is utterly stupid and ignorant.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Larry on Sun Mar 24 04:45:48 2024
    Larry wrote:

    You have just demonstrated your utter lack of comprehension and your inability to rebut
    my comments with any substantive statement.

    A "comment" is not a valid argument. I asked you to state what you believe are facts about
    reality and justify their validity. Your only response is a personal attack. That's what
    happens when one doesn't want to face reality.

    The truth is that the LT correctly understood is the difference of arrival times of the
    two beams in the MMX IF THE ETHER AND ETHER WIND EXIST.

    The LT is a prediction about reality, which it does very, very well (within its domain of
    applicability). There are two different hypothetical theses that lead to the LT. Can you
    state them?

    Because it was not detected it had to be claimed something exactly negated it hiding it.
    The LT is just a calculation of that effect. To claim otherwise is utterly stupid and
    ignorant.

    Not really. One concept is that moving rods really do contract and moving clocks really
    do slow down. This is called the Lorentz Ether Theory. Can you define the other one?
    (A theory that predicts reality is neither ignorant nor stupid, so please dispense with
    such childishness.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 24 08:25:22 2024
    W dniu 24.03.2024 oย 05:45, gharnagel pisze:
    Larry wrote:

    You have just demonstrated your utter lack of comprehension and your
    inability to rebut
    my comments with any substantive statement.

    A "comment" is not a valid argument.ย  I asked you to state what you
    believe are facts about
    reality and justify their validity.ย  Your only response is a personal attack.ย  That's what
    happens when one doesn't want to face reality.

    The only reality you know are your insane
    delusions. That's what The Shit is doing
    with the brains of its victims.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 24 08:23:45 2024
    W dniu 24.03.2024 oย 03:59, gharnagel pisze:
    Larry wrote:

    Gary, your opinion is so worthless to me the only reason I read it
    this time is because
    this new forum has so few comments so far.

    Of course it's worthless to you, because you ignore the facts.ย  Your
    mind is made up and
    you don't want to be jarred into reality.

    We know your "reality", you had to delete GPS
    clocks from it as they didn't want to match
    the delusions of your idiot guru.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Sun Mar 24 15:09:17 2024
    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    The most ridiculous science mistake in history.

    The null result of MMX disproved the ether.

    Really? Nobody thought so at the time.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

    There was no reason for discarding it, at the time.

    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    A miracle has occurred! You have said something that is correct!

    Showing Einstein's utter lack of comprehension of the science.

    As always, the problem is yours,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nicodemis =?iso-8859-1?q?Sep=FAlved@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Mar 24 16:23:35 2024
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    A miracle has occurred! You have said something that is correct!

    Showing Einstein's utter lack of comprehension of the science.

    As always, the problem is yours, Jan

    in order to undrestand more about Jesus, which was not a jew and spoke
    arameic.

    ๐—Ÿ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฟ_๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ_๐—ฆ๐—ผ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ฟ_๐—˜๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฝ๐˜€๐—ฒ,_๐——๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—น'๐˜€_๐—–๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜,_๐—๐—ฒ๐˜„_๐—ช๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—น๐—ฑ_๐—ง๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ
    ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ_๐—œ๐˜€๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—น๐—น_๐—™๐˜‚๐—น๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—น๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜†_๐˜๐—ผ_๐—•๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด
    https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/60mnwS8EWRdD

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Sun Mar 24 12:20:03 2024
    On 3/23/2024 10:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    Gary, your opinion is so worthless to me the only reason I read it this
    time is because this new forum has so few comments so far.

    This isn't a new forum. It's old fashioned Usenet. The volume is down substantially because of the Google Groupers who are gone because their
    gateway to Usenet is closed.

    The
    relativists here haven't said anything ever that would persuade a
    reasonable person inquiring after the truth about nature. Non-Euclidean geometry is warped. Nothing said by the relativists here even attempts
    to persuade skeptics.

    Reasonable people who have investigated have been persuaded. The anti-relativity cranks not persuaded aren't reasonable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Mar 24 18:51:54 2024
    On 2024-03-24 16:20:03 +0000, Volney said:

    On 3/23/2024 10:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    Gary, your opinion is so worthless to me the only reason I read it this
    time is because this new forum has so few comments so far.

    This isn't a new forum. It's old fashioned Usenet.

    That is one of the many things that LaurenceClarkCrossen doesn't understand.

    The volume is down substantially because of the Google Groupers who
    are gone because their gateway to Usenet is closed.

    The relativists here haven't said anything ever that would persuade a
    reasonable person inquiring after the truth about nature. Non-Euclidean
    geometry is warped. Nothing said by the relativists here even attempts
    to persuade skeptics.

    Reasonable people who have investigated have been persuaded. The anti-relativity cranks not persuaded aren't reasonable.


    --
    athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 24 19:47:21 2024
    W dniu 24.03.2024 oย 17:20, Volney pisze:

    Reasonable people who have investigated have been persuaded. The anti-relativity cranks not persuaded aren't reasonable.


    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 24 20:45:45 2024
    Let me know if he ever says anything of any value...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 24 22:10:12 2024
    Queen Jan has abdicated his responsibility!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 24 22:06:33 2024
    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the science.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 25 02:17:48 2024
    Nobody but Einstein. He boldly rejected the ether. This shows the opposite of what you intend. Instead of making what Einstein did seem reasonable in the historical context, it shows how reckless and foolish he was.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sun Mar 24 20:54:19 2024
    JanPB wrote:

    LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.

    I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Your nonsense delusions are your problem, not mine.

    --
    Jan

    "nonsense delusions"??? Is that even correct English?

    There is a reason why if i see that a film is London based I
    automatically avoid it...

    How in the world can anyone anyone understand what they in the movie are saying?? It's like
    some form of foreign language no one speaks. "Give me a bell"

    I lose track of the movie trying to figure out how does one give a bell
    to someone!!!

    Does everybody suppose to talk with a spoon in their mouth??? My ears
    hurt.


    LEARN ENGLISH!!!!


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sun Mar 24 22:29:03 2024
    The Starmaker wrote:

    JanPB wrote:

    LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.

    I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Your nonsense delusions are your problem, not mine.

    --
    Jan

    "nonsense delusions"??? Is that even correct English?

    There is a reason why if i see that a film is London based I
    automatically avoid it...

    How in the world can anyone anyone understand what they in the movie are saying?? It's like
    some form of foreign language no one speaks. "Give me a bell"

    I lose track of the movie trying to figure out how does one give a bell
    to someone!!!

    Does everybody suppose to talk with a spoon in their mouth??? My ears
    hurt.

    LEARN ENGLISH!!!!

    There is one Brisitish/London movie that is a favorite of mine but then they didn't have English subtitles...
    it took me centuries to figure wat dey were sayin.

    I was thinking of making a remake of the movie...in English.

    You know, so that 'real people' can watch it without being in excruciating pain.




    Why is it that Google Translate doesn't have London?



    If you go to London, and in a train station, don't ask anybody "Which way is the way out?"


    otherwise they will say...
    "Stupid American, do you see that sign over there?"
    "I say, Yeah, I see it."
    They say: "What does the sign read?"
    "I say, it reads "Way Out"."
    They say, "THAT'S THE WAY OUT YOU WANKER!!!"
    I say, "You kidding me????"

    I thought it was some hippie sign!

    dats way out man!












    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 25 07:52:44 2024
    W dniu 24.03.2024 oย 21:36, JanPB pisze:
    LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.

    I am not here to convince anyone of anything.

    You're here to bark at the enemies of your
    delusional religion; that what it has trained
    you for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 25 12:35:00 2024
    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    No, he didn't "disprove" the ether. He derived the LT without presupposing
    an ether.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the science.

    Actually, it shows Larry's "utter lack of comprehension of the science":

    If the LT can be derived from simpler postulates that can actually be tested with measurable results, why would we keep an alternate hypothesis that presumes an undetectable ether? That wouldn't be science.

    The LT is only part of special relativity and the rest goes far beyond that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Mon Mar 25 13:39:47 2024
    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
    saw that the aether has no observable properties.
    Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
    and after Einstein 1905 he saw
    that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.

    This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the science.

    Science is above all an economic representation of the world.
    (by Ockham, Mach, and afaik all other philosophers of science)
    It doesn't carry unnecessary unobservables along.
    The problem is your's.

    There is no point in (for example) having Newton's laws
    for the motions of planets, AND to have angels to push them along
    in such a way that they move precisely in accordance with Newton's laws.

    Some conservative theologians tried that trick,
    but for some strange reason it didn't catch on,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 25 14:48:26 2024
    W dniu 25.03.2024 oย 13:39, J. J. Lodder pisze:

    Science is above all an economic representation of the world.
    (by Ockham, Mach, and afaik all other philosophers of science)
    It doesn't carry unnecessary unobservables along.

    Unfortunately, ether isn't unnecessary,
    even your idiot guru had to finally admit
    it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 25 14:44:35 2024
    W dniu 25.03.2024 oย 13:35, gharnagel pisze:
    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    No, he didn't "disprove" the ether.ย  He derived the LT without presupposing an ether.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the
    science.

    Actually, it shows Larry's "utter lack of comprehension of the science":

    If the LT can be derived from simpler postulates that can actually be
    tested
    with measurable results,

    They can be; and - as anyone can check at GPS -
    have nothing in common with real clocks, real
    observations or real anything.
    Of course, far brainwashed relativistic
    fanatics GPS can't be real, as it doesn't
    fit their religious delusions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Mon Mar 25 15:28:00 2024
    J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
    saw that the aether has no observable properties.
    Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
    and after Einstein 1905 he saw
    that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.


    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
    an aether?

    Maxwell:

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism/Part_IV/Chapter_XXIII

    "A MEDIUM NECESSARY.

    866.] We have seen that the mathematical expressions for electrodynamic
    action led, in the mind of Gauss, to the conviction that a theory of the propagation of electric action in time would be found to be the very
    KEYSTONE of electrodynamics. Now we are unable to conceive of
    propagation in time, except either as the flight of a material substance through space, or as the propagation of a condition of motion or stress
    in a medium already existing in space."

    ๐‘ฌ๐’Š๐’๐’”๐’•๐’†๐’Š๐’ 1920: แด๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“ ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐‘ป๐’‰๐’†๐’๐’“๐’š ๐’๐’‡
    ๐‘น๐’†๐’๐’‚๐’•๐’Š๐’—๐’Š๐’•๐’š

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity

    ๐‘น๐’†๐’„๐’‚๐’‘๐’Š๐’•๐’–๐’๐’‚๐’•๐’Š๐’๐’ˆ, ๐’˜๐’† ๐’Ž๐’‚๐’š ๐’”๐’‚๐’š ๐’•๐’‰๐’‚๐’•
    ๐’‚๐’„๐’„๐’๐’“๐’…๐’Š๐’๐’ˆ ๐’•๐’ ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’ˆ๐’†๐’๐’†๐’“๐’‚๐’ ๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’๐’“๐’š ๐’๐’‡
    ๐’“๐’†๐’๐’‚๐’•๐’Š๐’—๐’Š๐’•๐’š ๐’”๐’‘๐’‚๐’„๐’† ๐’Š๐’” ๐’†๐’๐’…๐’๐’˜๐’†๐’… ๐’˜๐’Š๐’•๐’‰
    ๐’‘๐’‰๐’š๐’”๐’Š๐’„๐’‚๐’ ๐’’๐’–๐’‚๐’๐’Š๐’•๐’Š๐’†๐’”; ๐’Š๐’ ๐’•๐’‰๐’Š๐’” ๐’”๐’†๐’๐’”๐’†,
    ๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“๐’†๐’‡๐’๐’“๐’†, ๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“๐’† ๐’†๐’™๐’Š๐’”๐’•๐’” ๐’‚๐’ ๐’‚๐’†๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“.
    ๐‘จ๐’„๐’„๐’๐’“๐’…๐’Š๐’๐’ˆ ๐’•๐’ ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’ˆ๐’†๐’๐’†๐’“๐’‚๐’ ๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’๐’“๐’š ๐’๐’‡
    ๐’“๐’†๐’๐’‚๐’•๐’Š๐’—๐’Š๐’•๐’š ๐’”๐’‘๐’‚๐’„๐’† ๐’˜๐’Š๐’•๐’‰๐’๐’–๐’• ๐’‚๐’†๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“ ๐’Š๐’”
    ๐’–๐’๐’•๐’‰๐’Š๐’๐’Œ๐’‚๐’ƒ๐’๐’†; ๐’‡๐’๐’“ ๐’Š๐’ ๐’”๐’–๐’„๐’‰ ๐’”๐’‘๐’‚๐’„๐’† ๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“๐’†
    ๐’๐’๐’• ๐’๐’๐’๐’š ๐’˜๐’๐’–๐’๐’… ๐’ƒ๐’† ๐’๐’ ๐’‘๐’“๐’๐’‘๐’‚๐’ˆ๐’‚๐’•๐’Š๐’๐’ ๐’๐’‡
    ๐’๐’Š๐’ˆ๐’‰๐’•, ๐’ƒ๐’–๐’• ๐’‚๐’๐’”๐’ ๐’๐’ ๐’‘๐’๐’”๐’”๐’Š๐’ƒ๐’Š๐’๐’Š๐’•๐’š ๐’๐’‡
    ๐’†๐’™๐’Š๐’”๐’•๐’†๐’๐’„๐’† ๐’‡๐’๐’“ ๐’”๐’•๐’‚๐’๐’…๐’‚๐’“๐’…๐’” ๐’๐’‡ ๐’”๐’‘๐’‚๐’„๐’† ๐’‚๐’๐’…
    ๐’•๐’Š๐’Ž๐’† (๐’Ž๐’†๐’‚๐’”๐’–๐’“๐’Š๐’๐’ˆ-๐’“๐’๐’…๐’” ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’„๐’๐’๐’„๐’Œ๐’”), ๐’๐’๐’“
    ๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“๐’†๐’‡๐’๐’“๐’† ๐’‚๐’๐’š ๐’”๐’‘๐’‚๐’„๐’†-๐’•๐’Š๐’Ž๐’† ๐’Š๐’๐’•๐’†๐’“๐’—๐’‚๐’๐’” ๐’Š๐’
    ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’‘๐’‰๐’š๐’”๐’Š๐’„๐’‚๐’ ๐’”๐’†๐’๐’”๐’†. ๐‘ฉ๐’–๐’• ๐’•๐’‰๐’Š๐’” ๐’‚๐’†๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“ ๐’Ž๐’‚๐’š
    ๐’๐’๐’• ๐’ƒ๐’† ๐’•๐’‰๐’๐’–๐’ˆ๐’‰๐’• ๐’๐’‡ ๐’‚๐’” ๐’†๐’๐’…๐’๐’˜๐’†๐’… ๐’˜๐’Š๐’•๐’‰ ๐’•๐’‰๐’†
    ๐’’๐’–๐’‚๐’๐’Š๐’•๐’š ๐’„๐’‰๐’‚๐’“๐’‚๐’„๐’•๐’†๐’“๐’Š๐’”๐’•๐’Š๐’„ ๐’๐’‡ ๐’‘๐’๐’๐’…๐’†๐’“๐’‚๐’ƒ๐’๐’†
    ๐’Ž๐’†๐’…๐’Š๐’‚, ๐’‚๐’” ๐’„๐’๐’๐’”๐’Š๐’”๐’•๐’Š๐’๐’ˆ ๐’๐’‡ ๐’‘๐’‚๐’“๐’•๐’” ๐’˜๐’‰๐’Š๐’„๐’‰ ๐’Ž๐’‚๐’š
    ๐’ƒ๐’† ๐’•๐’“๐’‚๐’„๐’Œ๐’†๐’… ๐’•๐’‰๐’“๐’๐’–๐’ˆ๐’‰ ๐’•๐’Š๐’Ž๐’†. ๐‘ป๐’‰๐’† ๐’Š๐’…๐’†๐’‚ ๐’๐’‡
    ๐’Ž๐’๐’•๐’Š๐’๐’ ๐’Ž๐’‚๐’š ๐’๐’๐’• ๐’ƒ๐’† ๐’‚๐’‘๐’‘๐’๐’Š๐’†๐’… ๐’•๐’ ๐’Š๐’•.

    ๐‘ซ๐’Š๐’“๐’‚๐’„ 1951: ๐‘ฐ๐’” ๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“๐’† ๐’‚๐’ ร†๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“?

    https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0

    "Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
    the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
    region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
    matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
    relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz senseโ€”all
    directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
    According to the aether hypothesis, at each point in the region there
    must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
    velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within
    the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in
    suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

    This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
    present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
    mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular
    physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of
    space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be
    distributed over various possible values according to a probability law obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may
    set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the
    aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the
    perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity. "


    This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the
    science.

    Science is above all an economic representation of the world.
    (by Ockham, Mach, and afaik all other philosophers of science)
    It doesn't carry unnecessary unobservables along.
    The problem is your's.

    There is no point in (for example) having Newton's laws
    for the motions of planets, AND to have angels to push them along
    in such a way that they move precisely in accordance with Newton's laws.


    Without an aether, the state of physics is little different than "angels pulling/pushing around objects in accordance with the force laws".

    Maxwell again:

    "In fact, whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in
    time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists
    after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, ... Hence all
    these theories [indirectly] lead to the conception of a medium in which
    the propagation takes place, and if we admit this medium as an
    hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy a prominent place in our
    investigations, and that we ought to endeavour to construct a mental representation of all the details of its action, and this has been my
    constant aim in this treatise. "

    Some conservative theologians tried that trick,
    but for some strange reason it didn't catch on,

    Jan


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to aether on Mon Mar 25 19:37:22 2024
    aether wrote:

    Without an aether, the state of physics is little different than "angels pulling/pushing around objects in accordance with the force laws".

    "But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical interpretation
    of Maxwell's laws of the electro-magnetic field. The laws were clear and simple,
    the mechanical interpretations clumsy and contradictory....


    "the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility...."

    "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity
    does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we
    must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction
    take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."

    "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the
    ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential
    equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic
    fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same...."

    "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;
    for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be
    thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

    https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 26 12:19:00 2024
    gharnagel:> aether wrote:

    Without an aether, the state of physics is little different than "angels
    pulling/pushing around objects in accordance with the force laws".

    "But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a
    mechanical
    model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical interpretation
    of Maxwell's laws of the electro-magnetic field. The laws were clear and simple,
    the mechanical interpretations clumsy and contradictory....


    "the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
    theory of
    relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility...."

    "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity
    does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an
    ether; only we
    must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction
    take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still
    left it."

    "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
    relativity as
    opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former
    is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the
    state of the
    ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential
    equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic
    fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same...."

    "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there
    not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
    nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
    ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic
    of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

    https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/

    Gary (@gharnagel), you have overlooked an important part of my post,
    namely Dirac's 1951 note: Is there an Aether?

    You can read the note here:

    https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0

    and, the original paper which the note refers to here:

    Dirac, P. A. M. (1951). A New Classical Theory of Electrons. Proceedings
    of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 209(1098), 291โ€“296.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1951.0204

    The important point is that Dirac observes that even Einstein's notion
    that an aether compatible with relativity theory "may not be thought of
    as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
    consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of
    motion may not be applied to it" is obsolete.

    In Dirac's words (since the note is short, I reproduce it in full below):

    ########################################

    In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
    was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
    electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
    1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
    the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
    It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
    with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
    was abandoned.

    Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
    arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
    one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
    finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
    reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.

    Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
    the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
    region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
    matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
    relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz senseโ€”all
    directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
    According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
    must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
    velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within
    the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in
    suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

    This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
    present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
    mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular
    physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of
    space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be
    distributed over various possible values according to a probability law obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may
    set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the
    aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the
    perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity.

    One gets an analogous problem by considering the hydrogen atom with
    neglect of the spins of the electron and proton. From the classical
    picture it would seem to be impossible for this atom to be in a state of spherical symmetry. We know experimentally that the hydrogen atom can be
    in a state of spherical symmetryโ€”any spectroscopic S-state is such a
    state โ€”and the quantum theory provides an explanation by allowing
    spherically symmetrical wave functions, each of which makes all
    directions for the line joining electron to proton equally probable.

    We thus see that the passage from the classical theory to the quantum
    theory makes drastic alterations in our ideas of symmetry. A thing which
    cannot be symmetrical in the classical model may very well be
    symmetrical after quantization. This provides a means of reconciling the disturbance of Lorentz symmetry in space-time produced by the existence
    of an aether with the principle of relativity.

    There is one respect in which the analogy of the hydrogen atom is
    imperfect. A state of spherical symmetry of the hydrogen atom is quite a
    proper stateโ€”the wave function representing it can be normalized. This
    is not so for the state of Lorentz symmetry of the aether.

    Let us assume the four components v_ฮผ of the velocity of the aether at
    any point of space-time commute with one another. Then we can set up a representation with the wave functions involving the v's. The four v's
    can be pictured as defining a point on a three-dimensional hyperboloid
    in a four-dimensional space, with the equation :

    vโ‚€ยฒ-vโ‚ยฒ-vโ‚‚ยฒ-vโ‚ƒยฒ = 1, vโ‚€ > 0 (1) [LaTeX: v_0^2 - v_1^2 - v_2^2 -
    v_3^2 = 1, v_0 > 0]

    A wave-function which represents a state for which all aether velocities
    are equally probable must be independent of the v's, so it is a constant
    over the hyperboloid (1). If we form the square of the modulus of this
    wave function and integrate over the three-dimensional surface (1) in a Lorentz-invariant manner, which means attaching equal weights to
    elements of the surface which can be transformed into one another by a
    Lorentz transformation, the result will be infinite. Thus this wave
    function cannot be normalized.

    The states corresponding to wave functions that can be normalized are
    the only states that can be attained in practice. A state corresponding
    to a wave function which cannot be normalized should be looked upon as a theoretical idealization, which can never be actually realized, although
    one can approach indefinitely close to it. Such idealized states are
    very useful in quantum theory, and we could not do without them. For
    example, any state for which there is a particle with a specified
    momentum is of this kindโ€”the wave function cannot be normalized because
    from the uncertainty principle the particle would have to be distributed
    over the whole universe โ€” and such states are needed in collision problems.

    We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum mechanics and conforming to relativity, provided we are willing to
    consider the perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in
    practice. From the experimental point of view, there does not seem to be
    any objection to this. We must make some profound alterations in our theoretical ideas of the vacuum. It is no longer a trivial state, but
    needs elaborate mathematics for its description.

    I have recently (Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)]) put forward a
    new theory of electrodynamics in which the potentials A_ฮผ, are
    restricted by :

    A_ฮผA_ฮผ= kยฒ, [LaTeX: A_{\mu} A_{\mu} = k^2]

    where k is a universal constant. From the continuity of Aโ‚€ we see that
    it must always have the same sign and we may take it positive. We can
    then put

    kโปยนA_ฮผ = v_ฮผ (2) [LaTeX: k^{-1} A_{\mu} = v_{\mu}]

    and get v's satisfying (1). These v's define a velocity. Its physical significance in the theory is that if there is any electric charge it
    must flow with this velocity, and in regions where there is no charge it
    is the velocity with which a small charge would have to flow if it were introduced.

    We have now the velocity (2) at all points of space-time, playing a
    fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the
    velocity of some real physical thing. THUS WITH THE NEW THEORY OF ELECTRODYNAMICS WE ARE RATHER FORCED TO HAVE AN AETHER.

    ########################################

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Tue Mar 26 12:16:23 2024
    On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
    saw that the aether has no observable properties.
    Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
    and after Einstein 1905 he saw
    that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.

    In the LET, the aether is undetectable.


    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
    an aether?

    Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with associated constants such as ฮตโ‚€ and ฮผโ‚€. The old fashioned luminiferous aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
    sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
    could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
    but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
    Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "But this ether may not
    be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
    media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
    idea of motion may not be applied to it."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Tue Mar 26 21:21:33 2024
    On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects
    of an aether?

    They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

    As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
    explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
    an aether.

    Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science. (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science evolves MUCH faster than religion).

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Wed Mar 27 12:03:00 2024
    Tom Roberts:> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
    an aether?

    They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

    As Maxwell said: fields, especially ones which are capable of exerting
    physical forces, cannot exist apart from a medium or aether, just as a
    mind, that displays physical effects, cannot exist apart from a physical
    brain.


    As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
    explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
    an aether.


    One cannot hope to solve such long standing problems all at once. As I
    said, even the giants of QM, Schrรถdinger and Dirac, both of whom worked
    on regaining the aether made only little progress.

    I'd like to hear from you, which quantum effects do you consider as the
    most intractable from an aether point of view?

    Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science. (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science evolves MUCH faster than religion).

    Tom Roberts


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Wed Mar 27 13:30:35 2024
    Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:

    Tom Roberts:> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
    an aether?

    They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

    As Maxwell said: fields, especially ones which are capable of exerting physical forces, cannot exist apart from a medium or aether, just as a
    mind, that displays physical effects, cannot exist apart from a physical brain.

    To which Heinrich Hertz replied: (unfortunately after Maxwell's death) "Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations!"

    As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
    an aether.


    One cannot hope to solve such long standing problems all at once. As I
    said, even the giants of QM, Schr๖dinger and Dirac, both of whom worked
    on regaining the aether made only little progress.

    I'd like to hear from you, which quantum effects do you consider as the
    most intractable from an aether point of view?

    There is no aether point of view, there are no intractible effects.
    Quatum field theory is fully adequate.
    All 'aether effects' you may want to invent are nothing but added words.

    If I may paraphrase Hertz:
    Quantum field theory is nothing but the field equations,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 27 12:36:00 2024
    Volney:
    On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
    saw that the aether has no observable properties.
    Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
    and after Einstein 1905 he saw
    that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.

    In the LET, the aether is undetectable.


    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
    an aether?

    Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with associated constants such as ฮตโ‚€ and ฮผโ‚€. The old fashioned luminiferous aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
    sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
    could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
    but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
    Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "But this ether may not
    be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
    media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
    idea of motion may not be applied to it."

    @Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and Aether?", which is cited below too:

    The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
    that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in motion.

    Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
    https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
    ########################################

    In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
    was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
    electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
    1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
    the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
    It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
    with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
    was abandoned.

    Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
    arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
    one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
    finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
    reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.

    Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
    the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
    region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
    matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
    relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz senseโ€”all
    directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
    According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
    must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
    velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within
    the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in
    suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

    This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
    present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
    mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular
    physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of
    space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be
    distributed over various possible values according to a probability law obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may
    set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the
    aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the
    perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity.

    One gets an analogous problem by considering the hydrogen atom with
    neglect of the spins of the electron and proton. From the classical
    picture it would seem to be impossible for this atom to be in a state of spherical symmetry. We know experimentally that the hydrogen atom can be
    in a state of spherical symmetryโ€”any spectroscopic S-state is such a
    state โ€”and the quantum theory provides an explanation by allowing
    spherically symmetrical wave functions, each of which makes all
    directions for the line joining electron to proton equally probable.

    We thus see that the passage from the classical theory to the quantum
    theory makes drastic alterations in our ideas of symmetry. A thing which
    cannot be symmetrical in the classical model may very well be
    symmetrical after quantization. This provides a means of reconciling the disturbance of Lorentz symmetry in space-time produced by the existence
    of an aether with the principle of relativity.

    There is one respect in which the analogy of the hydrogen atom is
    imperfect. A state of spherical symmetry of the hydrogen atom is quite a
    proper stateโ€”the wave function representing it can be normalized. This
    is not so for the state of Lorentz symmetry of the aether.

    Let us assume the four components v_ฮผ of the velocity of the aether at
    any point of space-time commute with one another. Then we can set up a representation with the wave functions involving the v's. The four v's
    can be pictured as defining a point on a three-dimensional hyperboloid
    in a four-dimensional space, with the equation :

    vโ‚€ยฒ-vโ‚ยฒ-vโ‚‚ยฒ-vโ‚ƒยฒ = 1, vโ‚€ > 0 (1) [LaTeX: v_0^2 - v_1^2 - v_2^2 -
    v_3^2 = 1, v_0 > 0]

    A wave-function which represents a state for which all aether velocities
    are equally probable must be independent of the v's, so it is a constant
    over the hyperboloid (1). If we form the square of the modulus of this
    wave function and integrate over the three-dimensional surface (1) in a Lorentz-invariant manner, which means attaching equal weights to
    elements of the surface which can be transformed into one another by a
    Lorentz transformation, the result will be infinite. Thus this wave
    function cannot be normalized.

    The states corresponding to wave functions that can be normalized are
    the only states that can be attained in practice. A state corresponding
    to a wave function which cannot be normalized should be looked upon as a theoretical idealization, which can never be actually realized, although
    one can approach indefinitely close to it. Such idealized states are
    very useful in quantum theory, and we could not do without them. For
    example, any state for which there is a particle with a specified
    momentum is of this kindโ€”the wave function cannot be normalized because
    from the uncertainty principle the particle would have to be distributed
    over the whole universe โ€” and such states are needed in collision problems.

    We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum mechanics and conforming to relativity, provided we are willing to
    consider the perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in
    practice. From the experimental point of view, there does not seem to be
    any objection to this. We must make some profound alterations in our theoretical ideas of the vacuum. It is no longer a trivial state, but
    needs elaborate mathematics for its description.

    I have recently (Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)]) put forward a
    new theory of electrodynamics in which the potentials A_ฮผ, are
    restricted by :

    A_ฮผA_ฮผ= kยฒ, [LaTeX: A_{\mu} A_{\mu} = k^2]

    where k is a universal constant. From the continuity of Aโ‚€ we see that
    it must always have the same sign and we may take it positive. We can
    then put

    kโปยนA_ฮผ = v_ฮผ (2) [LaTeX: k^{-1} A_{\mu} = v_{\mu}]

    and get v's satisfying (1). These v's define a velocity. Its physical significance in the theory is that if there is any electric charge it
    must flow with this velocity, and in regions where there is no charge it
    is the velocity with which a small charge would have to flow if it were introduced.

    We have now the velocity (2) at all points of space-time, playing a
    fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the
    velocity of some real physical thing. THUS WITH THE NEW THEORY OF ELECTRODYNAMICS WE ARE RATHER FORCED TO HAVE AN AETHER.

    (Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)]): Dirac, P. A. M. (1951). A New Classical Theory of Electrons. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 209(1098), 291โ€“296.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1951.0204

    ########################################

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Wed Mar 27 13:23:01 2024
    On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    Volney:
    On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether. >>>>>
    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
    saw that the aether has no observable properties.
    Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
    and after Einstein 1905 he saw
    that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.

    In the LET, the aether is undetectable.


    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
    an aether?

    Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
    associated constants such as ฮตโ‚€ and ฮผโ‚€. The old fashioned luminiferous >> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
    sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
    could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
    but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
    Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so
    velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "But this ether may not
    be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
    media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
    idea of motion may not be applied to it."

    @Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and Aether?", which is cited below too:

    The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
    that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in motion.

    Any "motion" of the purported aether doesn't show up anywhere. Even LET
    while calling for an aether can use any speed you want for the aether
    and it still works. Does that mean aether has all speeds simultaneously?

    Also motion of the aether violates the Principle of Relativity. The rest
    frame of the aether is a special frame while the PoR states there are no special frames.

    (In LET since the aether can have any speed, there is no special aether
    rest frame)

    Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
    https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
    ########################################

    In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
    was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
    electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
    1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
    the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
    It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
    with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
    was abandoned.

    It was not "soon found". Einstein stated his SR works wouldn't involve
    any aether at the beginning of the 1905 paper. He didn't claim the
    aether was false, just that he wasn't using it.

    Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
    arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
    one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
    finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
    reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.

    Quantum theories have no need for an aether, and are incompatible with
    an aether.

    Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
    the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
    region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
    matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
    relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz senseโ€”all directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
    According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
    must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the velocity of light.

    Relative to what? All motion is relative.

    This velocity provides a preferred direction within
    the light-cone in space-time,

    Making it incompatible with the PoR.

    which direction should show itself up in
    suitable experiments.

    This has been looked for, without success. The best example is the MMX
    itself.

    Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
    requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

    Which rules out an aether, or at least an aether with the property of
    motion. As Einstein said.

    This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
    present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum mechanics to the aether.

    QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.

    [snip bla bla bla]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 27 19:10:00 2024
    Volney:
    On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    Volney:
    On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether. >>>>>>
    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
    saw that the aether has no observable properties.
    Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
    and after Einstein 1905 he saw
    that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of
    v/c.

    In the LET, the aether is undetectable.


    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of >>>> an aether?

    Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
    associated constants such as ฮตโ‚€ and ฮผโ‚€. The old fashioned luminiferous
    aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
    sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
    could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
    but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
    Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so
    velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "But this ether may not
    be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
    media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
    idea of motion may not be applied to it."

    @Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and
    Aether?", which is cited below too:

    The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
    that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in motion.

    Any "motion" of the purported aether doesn't show up anywhere. Even LET
    while calling for an aether can use any speed you want for the aether
    and it still works. Does that mean aether has all speeds simultaneously?

    Also motion of the aether violates the Principle of Relativity. The rest frame of the aether is a special frame while the PoR states there are no special frames.

    (In LET since the aether can have any speed, there is no special aether
    rest frame)

    Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
    https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
    ########################################

    In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
    was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
    electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
    1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
    the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
    It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
    with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
    was abandoned.

    It was not "soon found". Einstein stated his SR works wouldn't involve
    any aether at the beginning of the 1905 paper. He didn't claim the
    aether was false, just that he wasn't using it.

    Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
    arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
    one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
    finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
    reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.

    Quantum theories have no need for an aether, and are incompatible with
    an aether.

    Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
    the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
    region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
    matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
    relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz senseโ€”all
    directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
    According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
    must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
    velocity of light.

    Relative to what? All motion is relative.

    This velocity provides a preferred direction within
    the light-cone in space-time,

    Making it incompatible with the PoR.

    which direction should show itself up in
    suitable experiments.

    This has been looked for, without success. The best example is the MMX itself.

    Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
    requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

    Which rules out an aether, or at least an aether with the property of
    motion. As Einstein said.

    This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
    present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
    mechanics to the aether.

    QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.

    [snip bla bla bla]

    [snip bla bla bla]!!!

    I wonder whether you realize that you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.
    Go check out who that is on wikipedia.

    Everything within the line of hashes ### is a full reproduction of
    Dirac's 1951 Note/Letter to the Nature Journal, titled:

    "Is there an Aether?"

    https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0

    and here is Schrรถdinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf

    I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrรถdinger is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 28 18:16:00 2024
    Aether Regained:> Volney:
    On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:

    @Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and >>> Aether?", which is cited below too:

    The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
    that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in
    motion.

    Any "motion" of the purported aether doesn't show up anywhere. Even LET
    while calling for an aether can use any speed you want for the aether
    and it still works. Does that mean aether has all speeds simultaneously?

    Also motion of the aether violates the Principle of Relativity. The rest
    frame of the aether is a special frame while the PoR states there are no
    special frames.

    (In LET since the aether can have any speed, there is no special aether
    rest frame)

    Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
    https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
    ########################################

    In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
    was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
    electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
    1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
    the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
    It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in >>> with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
    was abandoned.

    It was not "soon found". Einstein stated his SR works wouldn't involve
    any aether at the beginning of the 1905 paper. He didn't claim the
    aether was false, just that he wasn't using it.

    Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
    arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
    one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
    finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
    reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.

    Quantum theories have no need for an aether, and are incompatible with
    an aether.

    Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
    the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
    region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
    matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
    relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz senseโ€”all
    directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
    According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
    must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
    velocity of light.

    Relative to what? All motion is relative.

    This velocity provides a preferred direction within
    the light-cone in space-time,

    Making it incompatible with the PoR.

    which direction should show itself up in
    suitable experiments.

    This has been looked for, without success. The best example is the MMX
    itself.

    Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
    requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

    Which rules out an aether, or at least an aether with the property of
    motion. As Einstein said.

    This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
    present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
    mechanics to the aether.

    QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.

    [snip bla bla bla]

    [snip bla bla bla]!!!

    I wonder whether you realize that you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.
    Go check out who that is on wikipedia.

    Everything within the line of hashes ### is a full reproduction of
    Dirac's 1951 Note/Letter to the Nature Journal, titled:

    "Is there an Aether?"

    https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0

    and here is Schrรถdinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf

    I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrรถdinger is.


    Rereading this, I realize that I was unnecessarily rude. But, in my
    defense, I was more than a little put off by your response to P. A. M.
    Dirac's "Is there an Aether?", like he was some run-of-the-mill crank.

    Dirac was a man of few words, and when he did talk, people listened
    carefully.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Thu Mar 28 17:15:20 2024
    On 3/27/24 2:10 PM, Aether Regained wrote:
    [...] you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.

    As I have said before: quoting ancient texts is RELIGION, not science.
    You need to do science.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From worm food@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Mar 28 18:34:46 2024
    On 3/27/2024 12:38 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On 03/26/2024 07:21 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
    an aether?

    They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

    As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
    explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
    an aether.

    Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
    (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
    evolves MUCH faster than religion).

    Tom Roberts




    That's pretty involved.

    It's like, "magnetic monopoles:
    nowhere magnetic monopoles, or
    everywhere magnetic micropoles". -?

    It's like if there's vacuum energy and asymptotic freedom,
    is it Dirac's positronic sea, and Einstein's white-hole sea,
    and a magnetic micropole sea, fleeting forever?

    It's like, "is it really that particles never actually
    collide, only slingshot, or else they just absorb".

    It's like light and absorption, and light and transmission,
    is the classical model really two super-classical models?

    Of course two wrongs don't make a right, and three
    explanations don't make sense, yet there's diffraction,
    and wave-particle duality and definitely it's exhibited
    the wave nature of light, and that the only way that
    the impact of a wave as a particle can be stochastic
    is as if it's super-classically as of an _infinite_ frequency.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=32

    I'm still trying to figure out even "higher orders of acceleration".

    It's kind of like I read from Feynman about 3/4 through
    that podcast, "force is a classical limit", while at the
    same time it's a real gradient in a theory of sum potentials
    according to the sum of histories.

    Then though before that for a few episodes is "logic
    and meta-theory" and "foundations of theory", ...,
    some weakest form of metaphysics that still suffices
    to be strong platonism and not just empirical.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyWpZQny5cY&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=26

    Another thing that's really involved is high-frequency
    vis-a-vis rays, of radiation, "all electromagnetic radiation",
    this has that light does not interact with electrical nor
    magnetic fields at all, it's not electromagnetic.


    Yeah, I know, two wrongs, ..., yet at some point "keeping
    things simple" has gotten too simple, and linearisations
    three different ways do not add up to round.


    Mostly it seems that physics does need some infinities,
    but only some kind of least infinities, about the continuous
    domains,

    "then otherwise how the inner is as super as the outer"

    Are you the last of the true magicians? I think so.

    and these kinds of concept are just right outside
    the usual grasp of finitude, yet they're still required,
    and, especially, in-teg-ral, to the multiple and various:
    law(s) of large numbers.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 29 07:47:54 2024
    W dniu 29.03.2024 oย 06:28, palsing pisze:
    LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

    Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

    The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

    Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

    This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the
    science.

    Larry... how long will it take you to realize that folks here are
    stealing your lunch money every time you show up and make a tiny wave?

    You are cannon fodder now and will always be cannon fodder in the
    future. You need to read a dang textbook and study for a few thousand
    hours before you can get into the adult pool and swim with the Big Boys...

    Sorry, but you do not know what you do not know!

    Come on, Al, stop making wise faces,
    the mumble of your idiot guru was not even
    consistent and you've got a proof for that,

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 29 13:48:03 2024
    On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects
    of an aether?

    They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

    We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
    delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
    the Planck scale, or perhaps not. Don't you think that field theories
    are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
    the seeds of their own limitations?

    As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
    explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
    an aether.

    First one must define what one means by an "aether." AR seems to accept
    that it must not have any measurable elements, so I guess he just wants
    to have a warm feeling about "waves" :-)

    Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science. (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science evolves MUCH faster than religion).

    Tom Roberts

    Sure, models aren't reality just like maps are not the territory. QFT is
    an excellent model (in its domain of applicability) and will probably give
    way to a more inclusive model some day.

    Will our ideas of what constitutes "a law of nature" change, too? Do you believe that E = mc^2 is a law of nature? How about \gamma mc^2? How
    about the invariance of c? Or the invariance of m, for that matter?

    Gary

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Fri Mar 29 15:02:19 2024
    On 2024-03-29 13:48:03 +0000, gharnagel said:


    On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
    an aether?

    They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

    We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
    delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
    the Planck scale, or perhaps not. Don't you think that field theories
    are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
    the seeds of their own limitations?

    As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
    explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
    an aether.

    First one must define what one means by an "aether." AR seems to accept
    that it must not have any measurable elements, so I guess he just wants
    to have a warm feeling about "waves" :-)

    Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
    (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
    evolves MUCH faster than religion).

    Tom Roberts

    Sure, models aren't reality just like maps are not the territory. QFT is
    an excellent model (in its domain of applicability) and will probably give way to a more inclusive model some day.

    Will our ideas of what constitutes "a law of nature" change, too? Do you believe that E = mc^2 is a law of nature? How about \gamma mc^2? How
    about the invariance of c? Or the invariance of m, for that matter?

    Gary


    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 29 15:43:31 2024
    W dniu 29.03.2024 oย 14:48, gharnagel pisze:
    On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the >
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects >
    of an aether?

    They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

    We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
    delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
    the Planck scale, or perhaps not.ย  Don't you think that field theories
    are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
    the seeds of their own limitations?


    You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
    your wannabe gedanken delusions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 29 17:59:54 2024
    W dniu 29.03.2024 oย 17:12, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 29.03.2024 oย 14:48, gharnagel pisze:

    On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:

    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the >
    electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable
    effects > > > of an aether?

    Tom Roberts wrote:

    They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of
    aether.

    We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
    delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
    the Planck scale, or perhaps not.ย  Don't you think that field theories
    are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
    the seeds of their own limitations?

    You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
    your wannabe gedanken delusions.

    Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS works,


    It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
    halfbrain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Mar 29 16:12:31 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 29.03.2024 oย 14:48, gharnagel pisze:

    On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:

    There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the > electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects >
    of an aether?

    Tom Roberts wrote:

    They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

    We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
    the Planck scale, or perhaps not.ย  Don't you think that field theories
    are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
    the seeds of their own limitations?

    You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
    your wannabe gedanken delusions.

    Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS works, in
    spite of having his nose rubbed in it many, many times:

    https://www.aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Ashbyarticle.pdf

    "Important relativistic effects on GPS satellite clocks include gravitational frequency shifts and time dilation. These effects are so large that if not accounted for, the system would not be effective."


    So weird Wozzie-boy chooses to ignore reality. Go figure!

    https://www.academia.edu/61719525/Relativity_in_the_global_positioning_system

    "there were some who doubted that relativistic e๏ฌ€ects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact therate of the clock
    in its ๏ฌnal orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it
    was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
    the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10^12."

    So the uncorrected clock confirmed GR and the synthesizer was turned on, synchronizing the GPS with earth time. Wozzie-boy is either abysmally stupid or he is a congenital liar. Not a good resume either way.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Sat Mar 30 11:45:55 2024
    On 3/27/2024 3:10 PM, Aether Regained wrote:
    Volney:
    On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:

    This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
    present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
    mechanics to the aether.

    QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.

    [snip bla bla bla]

    [snip bla bla bla]!!!

    I wonder whether you realize that you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.
    Go check out who that is on wikipedia.

    Everything within the line of hashes ### is a full reproduction of
    Dirac's 1951 Note/Letter to the Nature Journal, titled:

    "Is there an Aether?"

    https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0

    and here is Schrรถdinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf

    I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrรถdinger is.

    I didn't see that that was Dirac. It sounded too kooky. Looking into
    that, I see L. Infeld responded to Dirac's letter essentially stating an
    aether was not necessarily required.

    Dirac also didn't develop this concept into a theory. I don't know
    whether he realized it may be false or was just unable to pursue the idea.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Mar 30 17:43:20 2024
    Volney wrote:

    I didn't see that that was Dirac. It sounded too kooky. Looking into
    that, I see L. Infeld responded to Dirac's letter essentially stating an aether was not necessarily required.

    Dirac also didn't develop this concept into a theory. I don't know
    whether he realized it may be false or was just unable to pursue the idea.

    In Q.E.D., Feynman got around the ether problem by emphasizing that the
    photon is a particle. All particles have wave/particle duality. Electrons
    are fairly-well localized particles, yet they exhibit wave behavior, too,
    as do neutrons and protons. So they're all particles and don't need no stinking ether.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Mar 30 17:28:33 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 29.03.2024 oย 17:12, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
    your wannabe gedanken delusions.

    Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS works,

    It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
    halfbrain.

    Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works so he could tell
    fables about it again. In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks"
    ONLY on the earth. They're not good clocks aboard or on Mars or anywhere
    else. Wozzie-boy isn't a halfbrain: he's a nobrain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 30 19:39:33 2024
    dniu 30.03.2024 oย 18:28, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 29.03.2024 oย 17:12, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
    your wannabe gedanken delusions.
    Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS
    works,

    It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
    halfbrain.

    Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works

    The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
    significant.




    fables about it again.ย  In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks" ONLY on the earth.


    Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd
    opinion of you and your fellow idiots.
    And found them good ebough for the satellites.
    What a pity, isn't it?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Mar 30 19:36:49 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    dniu 30.03.2024 oย 18:28, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
    halfbrain.

    Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works

    The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
    significant.

    Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
    everyone is just as dishonest as he is.

    In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks" ONLY
    on the earth.

    Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
    and your fellow idiots.

    And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again. The GPS staff
    had to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
    in synchronism with the earthbound clocks.

    And found them good ebough for the satellites.

    Well, not on board the satellites. They were no longer "good"
    clocks to a hypothetical denizen aboard the satellite.

    What a pity, isn't it?

    It's a pity for the nonexistent denizen and the no-brained
    Wozzie-boy. Everyone else is just fine.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 30 22:26:39 2024
    W dniu 30.03.2024 oย 20:36, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ย  dniu 30.03.2024 oย 18:28, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
    halfbrain.
    Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works
    The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
    significant.

    Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
    everyone is just as dishonest as he is.


    You said that GPS clocks are not real.
    Because they can't fit the "reality"
    of your idiot guru prophecies. Well,
    if that's not a lie - what a lie is?



    In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks" ONLY
    on the earth.
    Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
    and your fellow idiots.

    And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again.ย  The GPS staff
    had to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
    in synchronism with the earthbound clocks.

    Somehow your mad assertions that it's good
    when the clocks are not synchronized - didn't
    work on them. Right, poor halfbrain?


    Well, not on board the satellites.ย  They were no longer "good"
    clocks to a hypothetical denizen aboard the satellite.

    But, somehow, they are "good" for the non-hypothetical
    computers aboard the satellite. So, take your delusional
    "hypothetical denizens" and put them straight into your
    dumb, lying ass, where they belong. You've fabricated
    them. Simply.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Mar 31 02:19:18 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 30.03.2024 oย 20:36, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
    everyone is just as dishonest as he is.

    You said that GPS clocks are not real.
    Because they can't fit the "reality"
    of your idiot guru prophecies. Well,
    if that's not a lie - what a lie is?

    Everything that Wozzie-boy asserts is a lie.

    The truth is that "GPS clocks" include the satellite clocks
    AND the ground clocks. The satellite clocks must be corrected
    twice a day because the orbits vary from ideal conditions.
    And that proves that Wozzie-boy is a liar since the bird clocks
    don't exactly track the ground clocks.

    Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
    and your fellow idiots.

    And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again.ย  The GPS staff
    had to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
    in synchronism with the earthbound clocks.

    Somehow your mad assertions that it's good
    when the clocks are not synchronized - didn't
    work on them. Right, poor halfbrain?

    More desperate lying by no-brain Wozzie-boy. Stupid no-brain
    tries to conflate clocks onboard with ground clocks.

    Well, not on board the satellites.ย  They were no longer "good"
    clocks to a hypothetical denizen aboard the satellite.

    But, somehow, they are "good" for the non-hypothetical
    computers aboard the satellite.

    Another desperate lie. "Computers" onboard arent the clocks onboard.

    So, take your delusional "hypothetical denizens" and put them
    straight into your dumb, lying ass, where they belong.

    They belong in your dumb lying ass, no-brain lying Wozzie-boy. You're
    a disgrace to the Polish people as well as all of humanity. Your
    disgusting career of vicious lies and desperate fabrications are an
    assault to honesty and intelligence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 31 07:50:38 2024
    W dniu 31.03.2024 oย 04:19, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 30.03.2024 oย 20:36, gharnagel pisze:
    Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
    everyone is just as dishonest as he is.

    You said that GPS clocks are not real.
    Because they can't fit the "reality"
    of your idiot guru prophecies. Well,
    if that's not a lie - what a lie is?

    Everything that Wozzie-boy asserts is a lie.

    Google still keeps the record (I guess),
    poor halfbrain trash.

    The truth is that "GPS clocks" include the satellite clocks
    AND the ground clocks.ย  The satellite clocks must be corrected
    twice a day because the orbits vary from ideal conditions.

    And because GPS staff is pissing at your
    moronic religion demanding us to leave
    the clocks uncorrected and desynchronizing -
    for the ethernal glory of the madness of
    your idiot guru.
    Well, common sense was warning the idiot.

    Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
    and your fellow idiots.
    And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again.ย  The GPS staff
    had to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
    in synchronism with the earthbound clocks.

    Somehow your mad assertions that it's good
    when the clocks are not synchronized - didn't
    work on them. Right, poor halfbrain?

    More desperate lying by no-brain Wozzie-boy.ย  Stupid no-brain
    tries to conflate clocks onboard with ground clocks.

    Rave and spit, poor halfbrain trash, your
    religion will still be ignored by professionals
    and their clocks. And your fabricated
    "hypothetical denizens" applying and praising
    your madness - are no way any balance
    for that.



    So, take your delusional "hypothetical denizens" and put them
    straight into your dumb,ย  lying ass,ย  where they belong.

    They belong in your dumb lying ass, no-brain lying Wozzie-boy.ย  You're
    a disgrace to the Polish people as well as all of humanity.ย  Your
    disgusting career of vicious lies and desperate fabrications are an
    assault to honesty and intelligence.


    Rave and spit, poor halfbrain trash, your
    religion will still be ignored by professionals
    and their clocks. And your fabricated
    "hypothetical denizens" applying and praising
    your madness - are no way any balance
    for that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 31 12:42:00 2024
    Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:

    W dniu 31.03.2024 oย 04:19, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 30.03.2024 oย 20:36, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
    everyone is just as dishonest as he is.

    You said that GPS clocks are not real.
    Because they can't fit the "reality"
    of your idiot guru prophecies. Well,
    if that's not a lie - what a lie is?

    Everything that Wozzie-boy asserts is a lie.

    Google still keeps the record (I guess),
    poor halfbrain trash.

    Google doesn't do anything anymore, no-brain.

    The truth is that "GPS clocks" include the satellite clocks
    AND the ground clocks.ย  The satellite clocks must be corrected
    twice a day because the orbits vary from ideal conditions.

    And because GPS staff is pissing at your
    moronic religion demanding us to leave
    the clocks uncorrected and desynchronizing -
    for the ethernal glory of the madness of
    your idiot guru.
    Well, common sense was warning the idiot.

    Actually, the GPS staff and Neil Ashby prove that no-brain Wozzie-
    boy is a lying weasel.

    Somehow your mad assertions that it's good
    when the clocks are not synchronized - didn't
    work on them. Right, poor halfbrain?

    More desperate lying by no-brain Wozzie-boy.ย  Stupid no-brain
    tries to conflate clocks onboard with ground clocks.

    Rave and spit,

    My "raving and spitting" was rebranded from stupid, no-brain
    Wozzie-boy's posts. So he has hoisted himself on his own petard.

    poor halfbrain trash,

    Half a brain is better than no brain.

    your religion will still be ignored by professionals and their
    clocks.

    Pot, kettle, black :-))

    And your fabricated "hypothetical denizens" applying and praising
    your madness - are no way any balance for that.

    Mad no-brain Wozzie-boy raves and spits :-))

    So, take your delusional "hypothetical denizens" and put them
    straight into your dumb,ย  lying ass,ย  where they belong.

    They belong in your dumb lying ass, no-brain lying Wozzie-boy.ย  You're
    a disgrace to the Polish people as well as all of humanity.ย  Your disgusting career of vicious lies and desperate fabrications are an
    assault to honesty and intelligence.

    Rave and spit,

    Just rebranding Demented Wozzie-boy's own raving and spitting. Adding
    some honest appraisal of a demented charlatan who hasn't bothered to look himself in the mirror and asked, "Have I done any good?"

    https://hymnary.org/text/have_i_done_any_good_in_the_world_today

    poor halfbrain trash,

    Wozzie-boy's brain has been starving for honest work for decades. It
    has shrunk to the size of an atom from disuse.

    โ€œIf your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your
    hat off.โ€ โ€• Kurt Vonnegut

    [Repetitious lies deleted for sanitary reasons]

    Mad Wozzie-boy has nothing of value to contribute to any valid discussion.
    All he does is spit and rave, then blames others for what he does. He will
    go down in flames if he doesn't change his ways.

    "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." -- Revelations 21:8

    โ€œWhen men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether it be
    good or bad.โ€ โ€• Tacitus


    Goodbye, Wozzie-boy. Happy Easter

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 31 16:04:24 2024
    W dniu 31.03.2024 oย 14:42, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:

    W dniu 31.03.2024 oย 04:19, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 30.03.2024 oย 20:36, gharnagel pisze:

    Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
    everyone is just as dishonest as he is.

    You said that GPS clocks are not real.
    Because they can't fit the "reality"
    of your idiot guru prophecies. Well,
    if that's not a lie - what a lie is?

    Everything that Wozzie-boy asserts is a lie.

    Google still keeps the record (I guess),
    poor halfbrain trash.

    Google doesn't do anything anymore, no-brain.


    Doesn't have to, the archive is, AFAIK,
    available.


    The truth is that "GPS clocks" include the satellite clocks
    AND the ground clocks.ย  The satellite clocks must be corrected
    twice a day because the orbits vary from ideal conditions.

    And because GPS staff is pissing at your
    moronic religion demanding us to leave
    the clocks uncorrected and desynchronizing -
    for the ethernal glory of the madness of
    your idiot guru.
    Well, common senseย  was warning the idiot.

    Actually, the GPS staff and Neil Ashby prove that no-brain Wozzie-
    boy is a lying weasel.

    Sure, and that its clocks are not real,
    just like Harrie is asserting. Right?

    Rave and spit,

    My "raving and spitting" was rebranded from stupid, no-brain
    Wozzie-boy's posts.ย ย  So he has hoisted himself on his own petard.

    poor halfbrain trash,

    Half a brain is better than no brain.


    Rave and spit, poor halfbrain trash, your
    religion will still be ignored by professionals
    and their clocks. And your fabricated
    "hypothetical denizens" applying and praising
    your madness - are no way any balance
    for that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Mar 31 19:01:33 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 31.03.2024 oย 14:42, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:

    Google still keeps the record (I guess),
    poor halfbrain trash.

    Google doesn't do anything anymore, no-brain.

    Doesn't have to, the archive is, AFAIK, available.

    It does, but not this thread. Non-google now keeps a record.

    And because GPS staff is pissing at your
    moronic religion demanding us to leave
    the clocks uncorrected and desynchronizing -
    for the ethernal glory of the madness of
    your idiot guru.
    Well, common senseย  was warning the idiot.

    Actually, the GPS staff and Neil Ashby prove that no-brain Wozzie-
    boy is a lying weasel.

    Sure, and that its clocks are not real,
    just like Harrie is asserting. Right?

    Maciej likes to conflate the onboard clocks with the ground clocks.
    The fact is that even if the onboard clocks were "real" clocks (i.e.,
    they were synchronized with the cesium line), they wouldn't appear
    "real" on earth. That's because time really is relative, as Maciej
    denies.

    Rave and spit,

    My "raving and spitting" was rebranded from stupid, no-brain
    Wozzie-boy's posts.ย ย  So he has hoisted himself on his own petard.

    poor halfbrain trash,

    Half a brain is better than no brain.

    Rave and spit, poor halfbrain trash, your
    religion will still be ignored by professionals
    and their clocks. And your fabricated
    "hypothetical denizens" applying and praising
    your madness - are no way any balance
    for that.

    Repeating lies doesn't make them true. Ho-hum. Nothing new here. I
    could be listening to a CD instead.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 31 22:01:01 2024
    W dniu 31.03.2024 oย 21:01, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 31.03.2024 oย 14:42, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:

    Google still keeps the record (I guess),
    poor halfbrain trash.
    Google doesn't do anything anymore, no-brain.

    Doesn't have to, the archive is, AFAIK, available.

    It does, but not this thread.ย  Non-google now keeps a record.


    Your lies of not real clocks of GPS are kept,
    don't worry.

    Sure, and that its clocks are not real,
    just like Harrie is asserting. Right?

    Maciej likes to conflate the onboard clocks with the ground clocks.
    The fact is that even if the onboard clocks were "real" clocks (i.e.,
    they were synchronized with the cesium line)


    Sorry, poor halfbrain, "real" no way means
    "synchronized with the cesium line".

    That's because time really is relative, as Maciej
    denies.


    Only in your gedanken "reality" deleting GPS
    clocks, Harrie.



    Rave and spit,
    My "raving and spitting" was rebranded from stupid, no-brain
    Wozzie-boy's posts.ย ย  So he has hoisted himself on his own petard.
    poor halfbrain trash,
    Half a brain is better than no brain.

    Rave and spit, poor halfbrain trash, your
    religion will still be ignored by professionals
    and their clocks. And your fabricated
    "hypothetical denizens" applying and praising
    your madness -ย  are no way any balance
    for that.

    Repeating lies doesn't make them true.

    And denying the truth doesn't make it faklse.
    Sorry, trash.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Tue Apr 2 11:34:51 2024
    On 3/30/2024 3:36 PM, gharnagel wrote:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ย  dniu 30.03.2024 oย 18:28, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
    halfbrain.
    Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works
    The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
    significant.

    Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
    everyone is just as dishonest as he is.

    He gets everything backwards, and "disproves" his backwards strawmen.

    In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks" ONLY
    on the earth.
    Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
    and your fellow idiots.

    And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again.ย  The GPS staff
    had to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
    in synchronism with the earthbound clocks.

    And again, his backwards claims claim enabling the synthesizer on the
    satellite somehow validates Newtonian mechanics.

    And found them good ebough for the satellites.

    Well, not on board the satellites.ย  They were no longer "good"
    clocks to a hypothetical denizen aboard the satellite.

    What a pity, isn't it?

    It's a pity for the nonexistent denizen and the no-brained
    Wozzie-boy.ย  Everyone else is just fine.

    Exactly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 2 18:35:09 2024
    W dniu 02.04.2024 oย 17:34, Volney pisze:
    On 3/30/2024 3:36 PM, gharnagel wrote:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ย  dniu 30.03.2024 oย 18:28, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
    halfbrain.
    Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works
    The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
    significant.

    Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
    everyone is just as dishonest as he is.

    He gets everything backwards, and "disproves" his backwards strawmen.

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 02:42:01 2024
    Maciej Wozniak dissembled:

    W dniu 02.04.2024 oย 17:34, Volney pisze:

    He gets everything backwards, and "disproves" his backwards strawmen.

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"?

    Since it's measured at rest and under standard conditions of course it's
    not affected by relativistic corrections. Wozzie-boy just continues his baloney-spewing agenda.

    You're such an agnorant idiot,

    Pot, Kettle, black.

    even considering the standards of your moronic religion.

    Irrelevant baloney, but Wozzie-boy's religion is the moronic one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Thu Apr 4 11:33:47 2024
    On 2024-04-04 02:42:01 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Maciej Wozniak dissembled:

    W dniu 02.04.2024 o 17:34, Volney pisze:

    He gets everything backwards, and "disproves" his backwards strawmen.

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"?

    Since it's measured at rest and under standard conditions of course it's
    not affected by relativistic corrections. Wozzie-boy just continues his baloney-spewing agenda.

    You're such an agnorant idiot,

    Pot, Kettle, black.

    even considering the standards of your moronic religion.

    Irrelevant baloney, but Wozzie-boy's religion is the moronic one.

    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about
    physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate?
    Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't get
    FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended.

    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 10:32:14 2024
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate?
    Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't get
    FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her
    television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these
    pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of things,
    it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this is why the
    French government wants to close it).
    I haven't watched television for decades, I prefer to read what people say
    on social networks and forums, and not have the distorting mirror of the
    major Western media all managed by Mr. Obama on the sly; but I enjoy
    watching
    CNews, where I find something other than insipid comments.
    You tell me what your wife thinks about it.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Apr 4 15:01:49 2024
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 ร  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about
    physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate?
    Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't get
    FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel
    would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this
    is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    I haven't watched television for decades, I prefer to read what people
    say on social networks and forums, and not have the distorting mirror
    of the major Western media all managed by Mr. Obama on the sly; but I
    enjoy watching
    CNews, where I find something other than insipid comments.
    You tell me what your wife thinks about it.

    R.H.


    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 14:16:32 2024
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    C'est le genre de truc que tu te demandes comment รงa peut exister sur la terre.

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2SjCjOJuxMlsn1VwqwuX1xX3nw@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    J'ai pensรฉ ร  une crรฉation avec un logiciel de retouches...

    Mais non...

    Un truc de fous...

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Thu Apr 4 14:48:11 2024
    Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

    On 2024-04-04 02:42:01 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Irrelevant baloney, but Wozzie-boy's religion is the moronic one.

    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    So the criticism hurt? Sorry about that, but you criticized my paper,
    DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, based solely on irrelevant "facts."
    (1) The fact that you had many more citations than I did and (2) four
    out of more than 30 of hrpub's journals were cited for "abuse" of one
    sort or another (but not UJPA). So (2) is "guilt by association" and
    (1) is snobbishness, I guess.

    As for "Dr" Hachel, sometimes he sounds almost reasonable, and that
    gives me hope that he's reachable, but then he dashes hope with his
    usual assertions.

    You and he have something in common: neither of you have degrees in
    physics but both of you feel free to denigrate those who do. The
    difference is Hachel comes up with his own crazy theories and tries
    to defend them by attacking those who disagree with him while you
    try to "shoot the messenger" rather than criticizing the message,
    apparently which is outside your field of expertise.

    If you're really interested in learning about the tachyon debate, I
    would encourage you to read some recent papers by Charles Schwartz:

    https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/PhysicsPapers/65_Symmetry_14_1172.pdf

    https://physics.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/schwartz.pdf

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10520

    You don't have to understand everything to get the gist of what he's
    saying and develop your own feeling about its correctness. That is
    what you should have done with my paper, too, and mine's a LOT easier
    to understand than Schwartz's. After all, most people read a paper's
    abstract and conclusions first. If it seems of more than passing
    interest, they'll read the introduction and then, if more interest is generated, they'll really dig in.

    Does this approach seem familiar to you?

    I had respect for a few people who have posted on these discussion
    groups: Tom Roberts, PCH (the aliased one) and you, among them. I
    lost a lot of respect for PCH when he invented incorrect "reasons" for criticizing my paper. He obviously doesn't understand the first thing
    about the case for tachyons.

    My own paper had one major goal, which I believe was attained: If
    tachyons were found to exist, they would not violate causality. It
    took four years to get there and it involved overcoming many objections.

    The conclusions section actually lists five conclusions, which wreck
    some "beliefs" about tachyons held by the scientific community (negative energy, causality violation and the reinterpretation principle).

    I hope your interest in what you criticized will lead you to trying to understand the issues rather than shooting blindly :-))

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 16:09:21 2024
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  16:48, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    The notion of tachyon is an abstract, absurd notion.
    It's like asking a Pythagorean to draw a perfectly round square.

    Today, human stupidity has been refined, Einsteinized...

    But it remains the human knowledge of people who, in order to be
    interesting, speak in Latin, or in English, to say anything.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 18:46:53 2024
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about
    physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate?
    Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't get
    FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her
    television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel
    would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these
    pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this
    is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    No surprise M.D. Lengrand (aka Hachel) loves C-News, a channel which
    almost
    exclusively spreads lies, hate speech and racism. Lengrand is doing the
    same :
    spreading lies (as you noticed), supporting bigotism, racism, white supremacism. Lengrand is a pathetic disgusting bigot, and an idiotic
    crank.

    BTW the government does not want to close it. Neither are people from the
    left who just asked for the state to stop allowing the channel to have
    free access to public broadcast network for free as they are basic decency requirements for channels to have such an access. Which makes, of course, perfect sense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 21:58:44 2024
    W dniu 04.04.2024 oย 20:46, Python pisze:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements
    about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate?
    Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't
    get FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her
    television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel
    would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these
    pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this
    is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    No surprise M.D. Lengrand (aka Hachel) loves C-News, a channel which almost

    Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
    and trying again to pretend he knows something.
    Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
    what a function is? Or are you still trying
    to determine its properties applying a French
    definition of a different word?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 19:50:57 2024
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about
    physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate?
    Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't get
    FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her
    television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel
    would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these
    pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this
    is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    You may have noticed that M.D. Lengrand, aka "Hachel" is evading your
    question
    on what French TV channels say about Russia and Putin.

    Evading when proven wrong or lying is an old habit of M.D. Lengrand.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 20:07:49 2024
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  21:58, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcrit :
    W dniu 04.04.2024 oย 20:46, Python pisze:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements
    about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate? >>>>> Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't
    get FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I >>>>> regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended. >>>>>
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her
    television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel
    would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these
    pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this
    is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    No surprise M.D. Lengrand (aka Hachel) loves C-News, a channel which almost

    Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
    and trying again to pretend he knows something.
    Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
    what a function is? Or are you still trying
    to determine its properties applying a French
    definition of a different word?

    What different word? How an idiot you are, Maciej...

    Are you more stupid than stubborn, Maciej, or the other way around?

    Fact is that in the French academia "functions" are usually defined
    over a set that is not necessarily restricted to their domains.

    For instance f: x->1/x is usually said to be a function from R
    to R (not R* to R) even if f(0) does not exist.

    This is only a matter of convention that does not really matter
    at the end of day. Only idiots of your kinds lost their minds
    on such insignificant details.

    If you could read French and had any kind of integrity, you would
    have got the point in the documents I pointed out to you. But
    you haven't, have you?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Apr 4 17:30:19 2024
    On 4/4/2024 12:09 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

    But it remains the human knowledge of people who, in order to be
    interesting, speak in Latin, or in English, to say anything.

    Or in French, in an English speaking group.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 22:13:51 2024
    Le 05/04/2024 ร  00:10, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a รฉcrit :
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  20:46, Python a รฉcrit :
    C-News, a channel which almost
    exclusively spreads lies, hate speech and racism.

    Absolutely not, Cnews is a very high quality French channel, whose audience is
    increasing from week to week (the French no longer tolerate Wokism and anti-white
    racism which is sweeping Europe today and other countries). French channels).

    Q.E.D.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 22:10:39 2024
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  20:46, Python a รฉcrit :
    C-News, a channel which almost
    exclusively spreads lies, hate speech and racism.

    Absolutely not, Cnews is a very high quality French channel, whose
    audience is increasing from week to week (the French no longer tolerate
    Wokism and anti-white racism which is sweeping Europe today and other countries). French channels).
    In addition, the very beautiful journalist Charlotte d'Ornellas is radiant
    with intelligence and beauty.

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?DX2bdF7y9_-CCEHYOEqixT-YGEA@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    Jean-Pierre Python lies.

    R.H.

    --
    Ce message a รฉtรฉ postรฉ avec Nemo: <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=DX2bdF7y9_-CCEHYOEqixT-YGEA@jntp>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Python on Thu Apr 4 17:25:59 2024
    On 4/4/2024 3:50 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements
    about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate?
    Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't
    get FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her
    television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel
    would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these
    pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this
    is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    You may have noticed that M.D. Lengrand, aka "Hachel" is evading your question
    on what French TV channels say about Russia and Putin.

    And what he is a doctor of.

    Unfortunately, ruโšก๏ธŽโšก๏ธŽia has very good propaganda so plenty of the not-so-bright believe all the awful things they say about Ukraine, even
    if absurd (such as a country with a Jewish prime minister and a Jewish secretary of state is run by Nazis). Putin himself is an old KGB agent.

    Evading when proven wrong or lying is an old habit of M.D. Lengrand.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Apr 5 02:09:06 2024
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 04/04/2024 ร  16:48, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    The notion of tachyon is an abstract, absurd notion.
    It's like asking a Pythagorean to draw a perfectly round square.

    Actually, tachyons fit perfectly into SR's equation:

    E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), when v > c the denominator is imaginary,
    so the energy is real if m is imaginary, too. The general energy
    equation is E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4, so if E^ > p^2c^, then m^2 is
    positive (normal matter), if E^2 - p^2c^2 = 0, then we have luxons
    (photons, gravitons) and if E^2 - p^2c^2 < 0 we have tachyons.

    Abstract? Perhaps, although neutrinos seem to have tachyonic
    properties. Absurd? Not so until proven wrong.

    โ€œIn order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd.โ€
    โ€“ Miguel de Cervantes

    โ€œThe most absurd and reckless aspirations have sometimes led to extraordinary success.โ€ -- Luc de Clapiers

    โ€œWhen a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
    he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.โ€ -- Arthur C. Clarke

    โ€œIf at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.โ€
    -- Albert Einstein

    โ€œOnly those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's in my basement... let me go upstairs and check.โ€ โ€“ M. C. Escher

    โ€œThe fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
    that it is not utterly absurd.โ€ -- Bertrand Russell

    So what may turn out to be absurd is those whose vociferously deny the existence of tachyons.

    Today, human stupidity has been refined,

    Hachelized

    But it remains the human knowledge of people who, in order to be
    interesting, speak in Latin, or in English, to say anything.

    R.H.


    So why do you speak in French to an English language board, Hmmm?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 5 06:50:18 2024
    W dniu 04.04.2024 oย 22:07, Python pisze:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  21:58, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcrit :
    W dniu 04.04.2024 oย 20:46, Python pisze:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements
    about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen
    on television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed
    doctorate? Until you do I shall continue regard it as something
    you got from a degree mill, or something you just invented. In
    other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't
    get FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. >>>>>> I regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and
    occasionally France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves
    these channels.) None of them has ever broadcast anything like the >>>>>> lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for
    her television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr.
    Hachel would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other
    than these pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing
    (this is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says,
    but she says it very well.

    No surprise M.D. Lengrand (aka Hachel) loves C-News, a channel which
    almost

    Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
    and trying again to pretend he knows something.
    Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
    what a function is? Or are you still trying
    to determine its properties applying a French
    definition of a different word?

    What different word?

    You've said yourself - French "fonction"
    is defined differently than English "function".
    So it is a different word, poor stinker.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 5 05:38:10 2024
    Le 05/04/2024 ร  06:50, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcrit :
    W dniu 04.04.2024 oย 22:07, Python pisze:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  21:58, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcrit :
    W dniu 04.04.2024 oย 20:46, Python pisze:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr" >>>>>>> Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements >>>>>>> about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen >>>>>>> on television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed
    doctorate? Until you do I shall continue regard it as something
    you got from a degree mill, or something you just invented. In
    other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't >>>>>>> get FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. >>>>>>> I regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and
    occasionally France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves
    these channels.) None of them has ever broadcast anything like the >>>>>>> lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for
    her television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr.
    Hachel would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other
    than these pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing
    (this is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says,
    but she says it very well.

    No surprise M.D. Lengrand (aka Hachel) loves C-News, a channel which
    almost

    Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
    and trying again to pretend he knows something.
    Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
    what a function is? Or are you still trying
    to determine its properties applying a French
    definition of a different word?

    What different word?

    You've said yourself - French "fonction"
    is defined differently than English "function".

    You are a fractal in miscomprehensions and lies Maciej...

    By the way, when it comes to the definition(s) of "fu/onction"
    I was mentionning quite a long time ago that confused you
    so much, it always was about the French educational and
    academia.

    But the silliness of your post amazed me. You are
    nomalist beyond stupidity at that point?! Really?

    "the sine function" and "la fonction sinus" are not the
    same thing, according to you, because the words are "different".

    Amazing... This should be terrible to be you Maciej.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Python on Fri Apr 5 09:43:07 2024
    On 2024-04-04 20:07:49 +0000, Python said:

    Le 04/04/2024 ร  21:58, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcrit :

    [ โ€ฆ ]


    Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
    and trying again to pretend he knows something.
    Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
    what a function is? Or are you still trying
    to determine its properties applying a French
    definition of a different word?

    What different word? How an idiot you are, Maciej...

    Actually I was thinking that Wozzie might be able to help us in another
    case. "Dr" Hachel was saying that he had given a lecture in Wrocล‚aw
    about 30 years ago. Now my Polish is non-existent (apart from what I
    can guess from studying Russian in the 1950s), and I suppose Google
    Translate isn't up to the task of looking for conferences in Wrocล‚aw,
    but maybe Wozzie could track it down.

    Are you more stupid than stubborn, Maciej, or the other way around?

    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Python on Fri Apr 5 09:44:27 2024
    On 2024-04-04 19:50:57 +0000, Python said:

    Le 04/04/2024 เ 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a ้crit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 ร  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about >>>> physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate?
    Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't get
    FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her
    television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel
    would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these
    pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this
    is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    You may have noticed that M.D. Lengrand, aka "Hachel" is evading your question
    on what French TV channels say about Russia and Putin.

    Of course. That's what he does.

    Evading when proven wrong or lying is an old habit of M.D. Lengrand.


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Python on Fri Apr 5 09:35:45 2024
    On 2024-04-04 18:46:53 +0000, Python said:

    Le 04/04/2024 เ 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a ้crit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 ร  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about >>>> physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate?
    Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't get
    FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her
    television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel
    would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these
    pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this
    is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    No surprise M.D. Lengrand (aka Hachel) loves C-News, a channel which almost exclusively spreads lies, hate speech and racism. Lengrand is doing the same :
    spreading lies (as you noticed), supporting bigotism, racism, white supremacism. Lengrand is a pathetic disgusting bigot, and an idiotic crank.

    Until now these chacteristics of "Dr" Hachel had escaped my attention,
    but you're right. I had thought that his main concern was to show that
    he was the greatest scientist since Poincar้.

    BTW the government does not want to close it. Neither are people from the left who just asked for the state to stop allowing the channel to have
    free access to public broadcast network for free as they are basic
    decency
    requirements for channels to have such an access. Which makes, of course, perfect sense.


    --
    athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Apr 5 09:46:03 2024
    On 2024-04-04 21:25:59 +0000, Volney said:

    On 4/4/2024 3:50 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about >>>>> physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on
    television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed doctorate? >>>>> Until you do I shall continue regard it as something you got from a
    degree mill, or something you just invented. In other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't get >>>>> FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. I
    regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and occasionally
    France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves these channels.)
    None of them has ever broadcast anything like the lies you pretended. >>>>>
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for her
    television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr. Hachel
    would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other than these
    pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing (this
    is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, but
    she says it very well.

    You may have noticed that M.D. Lengrand, aka "Hachel" is evading your question
    on what French TV channels say about Russia and Putin.

    And what he is a doctor of.

    Medicine, I can believe, but nothing that would qualify him to
    pronounce about relativity.

    Unfortunately, ruโšก๏ธŽโšก๏ธŽia has very good propaganda so plenty of the not-so-bright believe all the awful things they say about Ukraine, even
    if absurd (such as a country with a Jewish prime minister and a Jewish secretary of state is run by Nazis). Putin himself is an old KGB agent.

    Evading when proven wrong or lying is an old habit of M.D. Lengrand.


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 5 11:41:11 2024
    W dniu 05.04.2024 oย 07:38, Python pisze:
    Le 05/04/2024 ร  06:50, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcrit :
    W dniu 04.04.2024 oย 22:07, Python pisze:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  21:58, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcrit :
    W dniu 04.04.2024 oย 20:46, Python pisze:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr" >>>>>>>> Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements >>>>>>>> about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen >>>>>>>> on television, why should I believe what he says about physics? >>>>>>>>
    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed
    doctorate? Until you do I shall continue regard it as something >>>>>>>> you got from a degree mill, or something you just invented. In >>>>>>>> other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We
    don't get FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's >>>>>>>> not that. I regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, >>>>>>>> and occasionally France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just
    loves these channels.) None of them has ever broadcast anything >>>>>>>> like the lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots >>>>>>>
    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for >>>>>>> her television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr.
    Hachel would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other
    than these pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of >>>>>>> things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing
    (this is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says, >>>>>> but she says it very well.

    No surprise M.D. Lengrand (aka Hachel) loves C-News, a channel
    which almost

    Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
    and trying again to pretend he knows something.
    Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
    what a function is? Or are you still trying
    to determine its properties applying a French
    definition of a different word?

    What different word?

    You've said yourself - French "fonction"
    is defined differently than English "function".

    You are a fractal in miscomprehensions and lies Maciej...

    Google doesn't keep the record now, but it's you
    lying here. You've spent a lot of time and efforts -
    to show that French "fonction" is defined differently
    than English "function" and that your invoking
    of French definition of "fonction" in English
    discussion of "function" is an absurd. Well done.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 5 12:16:13 2024
    W dniu 05.04.2024 oย 07:38, Python pisze:

    "the sine function" and "la fonction sinus" are not the
    same thing, according to you, because the words are "different".

    The mammal dolphin and the animal dolphin -
    are they the same, poor stinker?
    Are animal and mammal the same words, poor
    stinker?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Fri Apr 5 09:00:06 2024
    On 4/5/2024 3:46 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    On 2024-04-04 21:25:59 +0000, Volney said:

    On 4/4/2024 3:50 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 04/04/2024 ร  15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รฉcrit :
    On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 04/04/2024 รƒย  11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a รƒยฉcrit :
    And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr"
    Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements
    about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen
    on television, why should I believe what he says about physics?

    Two questions for "Dr" Hachel:

    1. When are you going to produce evidence of your claimed
    doctorate? Until you do I shall continue regard it as something
    you got from a degree mill, or something you just invented. In
    other words a lie.

    2. Which television channels to you watch for your news? We don't
    get FoxNews in France (or only with difficulty), so it's not that. >>>>>> I regularly watch the news on TF1, BFM-TV, LCI, LCP, and
    occasionally France 2. (Why so many? Because my wife just loves
    these channels.) None of them has ever broadcast anything like the >>>>>> lies you pretended.

    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for
    her television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
    But you should advise her and tell her, to help her, what Dr.
    Hachel would suggest to her: to also watch a few channels other
    than these pro-Bideniste and ultra-Macronist channels.
    There is a channel that I like, because it gets to the bottom of
    things, it is CNews, whose audiences in France are only growing
    (this is why the French government wants to close it).

    OK, I forgot CNews. Although rather right-wing it has some good
    journalists, like Charlotte d'Ornelas. I don't agree wth all says,
    but she says it very well.

    You may have noticed that M.D. Lengrand, aka "Hachel" is evading your
    question
    on what French TV channels say about Russia and Putin.

    And what he is a doctor of.

    Medicine, I can believe, but nothing that would qualify him to pronounce about relativity.

    Python says "Dr." Hachel is really a medical Dr. Lengrand. "Dr." Hachel
    himself won't say what he's a doctor of, much less admit or deny being
    the same as this Dr. Lengrand. He ignores the question.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 5 12:39:27 2024
    Le 05/04/2024 ร  04:09, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 04/04/2024 ร  16:48, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    The notion of tachyon is an abstract, absurd notion.
    It's like asking a Pythagorean to draw a perfectly round square.

    Actually, tachyons fit perfectly into SR's equation:

    E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), when v > c the denominator is imaginary,
    so the energy is real if m is imaginary, too. The general energy
    equation is E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4, so if E^ > p^2c^, then m^2 is
    positive (normal matter), if E^2 - p^2c^2 = 0, then we have luxons
    (photons, gravitons) and if E^2 - p^2c^2 < 0 we have tachyons.

    Abstract? Perhaps, although neutrinos seem to have tachyonic
    properties. Absurd? Not so until proven wrong.

    I have read your response carefully, and I notice that you do not agree
    with my thoughts, but I am not offended by it as long as my correspondent remains intelligent, honest and courageous in his actions.
    As for the notion of tachyons, it is obviously an absurd notion, and I
    have often and clearly explained why.
    It's not that we can't observe observable speeds faster than light by technological default, it's that it's physically absurd.
    This is like trying to isolate dehydated water or draw a round square.
    It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's absurd.
    You pose the equation E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), it is both correct and incorrect because it does not define v.
    How do you write this equation?
    If you write it E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - Vo^2/c^2) it is true.
    But you will notice that I define here the observable, measurable speed of things.
    If I speak in real speed, I have to ask the same equation, but written differently: E = mc^2.sqrt(1+Vr^2/c^2)
    We then see that the energy of a body can only be positive, and that the
    trick, which uses a speed Vo supposedly greater than c (which is absurd),
    has no reason to be.
    Then, we have the right not to believe me, and to invent tachyons and
    round squares.
    But it won't get very far, I think, even with big oars.
    It's the intellectual masturbation of bored physicists.
    To say that we cannot exceed Vo because it is physically and theoretically absurd, and to write that Vo/c can have a value greater than 1, is
    ridiculous.
    I let the mathematicians and physicists play that if they want, but I
    don't follow them.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sat Apr 6 00:45:08 2024
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 05/04/2024 ร  04:09, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    Richard Hachel wrote:

    The notion of tachyon is an abstract, absurd notion.
    It's like asking a Pythagorean to draw a perfectly round square.

    Actually, tachyons fit perfectly into SR's equation:

    E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), when v > c the denominator is imaginary,
    so the energy is real if m is imaginary, too. The general energy
    equation is E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4, so if E^ > p^2c^, then m^2 is
    positive (normal matter), if E^2 - p^2c^2 = 0, then we have luxons (photons, gravitons) and if E^2 - p^2c^2 < 0 we have tachyons.

    Abstract? Perhaps, although neutrinos seem to have tachyonic
    properties. Absurd? Not so until proven wrong.

    I have read your response carefully, and I notice that you do not agree
    with my thoughts, but I am not offended by it as long as my correspondent remains intelligent, honest and courageous in his actions.
    As for the notion of tachyons, it is obviously an absurd notion, and I
    have often and clearly explained why.

    I haven't heard a valid explanation.

    It's not that we can't observe observable speeds faster than light by technological default, it's that it's physically absurd.

    Why is it "absurd"?

    This is like trying to isolate dehydated water or draw a round square.
    It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's absurd.

    That's not even a valid comparison.

    You pose the equation E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), it is both correct and incorrect because it does not define v.

    "v" conventionally (since the Galilean transform was introduced) means the speed of an inertial frame with respect to the "reference" frame, and this carries over into SR. That's why I use it, but it is somewhat incorrect for tachyons because they may not have a reachable inertial frame. So I usually write E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2), then translate it to another inertial
    frame moving at v wrst the reference frame. I used v in this case because
    it is common to do so in relativity discussions.

    How do you write this equation?
    If you write it E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - Vo^2/c^2) it is true.
    But you will notice that I define here the observable, measurable speed of things.

    Your method isn't the common way to write it. Those conversant with relativity understand v implicitly, but they do not understand Vo because v is the observable speed of an object. So you have invented your own term and conflated
    it with v.

    If I speak in real speed, I have to ask the same equation, but written differently: E = mc^2.sqrt(1+Vr^2/c^2)

    Which makes no sense to those who understand SR: They know it is wrong.

    We then see that the energy of a body can only be positive, and that the trick, which uses a speed Vo supposedly greater than c (which is absurd),
    has no reason to be.

    I'm afraid your equation is incorrect. I can demonstrate a derivation that
    E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) with v as the velocity of a particle moving at observable v wrst a reference inertial frame. It results in a minus sign,
    not a plus sign.

    Then, we have the right not to believe me, and to invent tachyons and
    round squares.

    For tachyons, E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), where u > c and m is the absolute value of the tachyon "invariant" mass. The minus sign derives from the
    correct SR equation for energy.

    But it won't get very far, I think, even with big oars.
    It's the intellectual masturbation of bored physicists.

    Perhaps.

    To say that we cannot exceed Vo because it is physically and theoretically absurd, and to write that Vo/c can have a value greater than 1, is ridiculous.

    Vo is a bastard expression, I'm afraid.

    I let the mathematicians and physicists play that if they want, but I
    don't follow them.

    R.H.

    I'm afraid that YOU are the one that is playing. You cannot show a derivation, let alone a valid one, of your equation. I can.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 6 01:49:03 2024
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :
    Vo is a bastard expression, I'm afraid.

    I let the mathematicians and physicists play that if they want, but I
    don't follow them.

    R.H.

    I'm afraid that YOU are the one that is playing. You cannot show a derivation,
    let alone a valid one, of your equation. I can.

    :))

    Please explain to me how, in Langevin's traveler, the proper time of
    Stella's return journey is 9 years.

    Explain to me why the apparent speed of the earth when it returns is
    Vapp=4c.

    It's very easy to explain.

    It takes thirty seconds.

    But explain to me why Doctor Hachel is a moron, why he did not give the
    most beautiful notion of the theory of special relativity (better than
    Einstein and Minkowski), and why he says that the distance traveled does
    not matter. be a contraction of type distances D'=D.sqrt(1-Voยฒ/cยฒ) i.e.
    7.2 ly.

    Explain to me why Doctor Hachel is a moron who says it's impossible,
    because x=Vapp.Tr and x=36aly and that the only way to understand RR is to listen to what he says, everything he says, and exclusion of all the
    bullshit of others.

    We'll never get out of this if you don't make the effort to understand
    what I'm saying, and if you persist in acting like a monkey when I answer
    you and explain.



    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sat Apr 6 02:54:34 2024
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 06/04/2024 ร  02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    Vo is a bastard expression, I'm afraid.

    I let the mathematicians and physicists play that if they want, but I don't follow them.

    R.H.

    I'm afraid that YOU are the one that is playing. You cannot show a derivation,
    let alone a valid one, of your equation. I can.

    :))

    Please explain to me how, in Langevin's traveler, the proper time of
    Stella's return journey is 9 years.

    Explain to me why the apparent speed of the earth when it returns is
    Vapp=4c.

    It's very easy to explain.

    It takes thirty seconds.

    But explain to me why Doctor Hachel is a moron, why he did not give the
    most beautiful notion of the theory of special relativity (better than Einstein and Minkowski), and why he says that the distance traveled does
    not matter. be a contraction of type distances D'=D.sqrt(1-Voยฒ/cยฒ) i.e.
    7.2 ly.

    Explain to me why Doctor Hachel is a moron who says it's impossible,
    because x=Vapp.Tr and x=36aly and that the only way to understand RR is to listen to what he says, everything he says, and exclusion of all the
    bullshit of others.

    We'll never get out of this if you don't make the effort to understand
    what I'm saying, and if you persist in acting like a monkey when I answer
    you and explain.

    R.H.

    Apparently, you can't refute what I said about energy (dynamics), so you're trying to change the subject to kinematics. This is not a valid way to
    have an honest discussion. I responded directly to your post but you are equivocating. Continue a discussion that YOU started, or don't. I don't
    care, but please be honest about it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Smith Hugaev Tomanov@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Sat Apr 6 11:09:15 2024
    gharnagel wrote:

    Richard Hachel wrote:
    Explain to me why Doctor Hachel is a moron who says it's impossible,
    because x=Vapp.Tr and x=36aly and that the only way to understand RR is
    to listen to what he says, everything he says, and exclusion of all the
    bullshit of others.
    We'll never get out of this if you don't make the effort to understand
    what I'm saying, and if you persist in acting like a monkey when I
    answer you and explain. R.H.

    Apparently, you can't refute what I said about energy (dynamics), so
    you're trying to change the subject to kinematics. This is not a valid
    way to have an honest discussion. I responded directly to your post but
    you are equivocating. Continue a discussion that YOU started, or don't.
    I don't care, but please be honest about it.

    wow, this usenet user is taking "energy" to others, ignoring the same
    energy, when talking about his own "faster than light" travel lol. This is great, you must be from Glรผcksburg.

    ๐—จ๐—ก_๐˜€๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฑ๐˜€_๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—บ_๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ_๐—œ๐˜€๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ฒ๐—นโ€™๐˜€_๐—”๐—œ_๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฏ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ผ๐—ณ_๐—š๐—ฎ๐˜‡๐—ฎ
    The technology should be utilized to benefit the world, not wage wars,
    Antonio Guterres has said
    https://www.%72%74.com/news/595510-un-israel-gaza-ai/

    The purpose of AI is to avoid responsibility for crimes by blaming them on
    AI. lol

    The zionist Nazis are good at openly displaying their genocidal crimes. A special prison should be built for their leadership

    They are just creating this bull load on AI and rogue individuals to shield themselves from warcrimes.

    Zionist child killers AI is focused on bombing civilians, killing children, attacking hospitals and killing foreign aid workers. Zionists have proven
    to be the most cowardly subhuman savages in history.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 6 10:42:53 2024
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Why is it "absurd"?

    It's as absurd as believing that you can draw a student a round square.
    As the student does not succeed, we blame the pencil, then we blame the
    paper.
    Then Paul B. Andersen intervenes who will accuse the professor.
    We then change the pencil, the paper, the teacher, but the student still
    does not know how to draw a round square.
    We accuse the student, and we say that he is not cooperating.
    This is what is happening with the speed of light speed, or body
    propagation or physical laws.
    We simply cannot.
    Some people then set out to invent a tool, which they would call a magic pencil, a very high-tech pencil,
    and who would be able to draw round squares and
    octagonal triangles.
    But no, nothing will help, it is not a TECHNOLOGICAL problem, but a
    logical problem.
    You also cannot find an integer natural number between eight and nine,
    even if you have a supercomputer.

    It is simply as illogical, in OUR UNIVERSE, as to return before having
    left, or to go faster than an instantaneous interaction.

    We then enter into abstractions and absurdities which have, in science,
    and in special relativity, no kind of interest.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 6 14:36:37 2024
    Den 06.04.2024 03:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    Please explain to me how, in Langevin's traveler, the proper time of
    Stella's return journey is 9 years.

    It is very easy to explain.

    The proper time of Stella's return journey is what
    The Special Theory of Relativity predicts it is.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf

    The Special Theory of Relativity is tested
    by innumerable experiments and is falsified by none.

    https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

    The twin 'paradox' is tested here:
    https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf

    The twin that travelled around the Earth in the westward direction
    aged ~330 ns more than the twin that travel around the Earth in
    the eastward direction.

    As predicted by SR (within precision of measurements).


    Explain to me why the apparent speed of the earth when it returns is
    Vapp=4c.

    I suppose you mean what the speed of the Earth will appear to
    be for the traveller on his return trip.

    The only way the traveller can measure this speed is by observing
    the Doppler shift of the sunlight reflected from the Earth.
    (Balmer etc., you know)


    It's very easy to explain.

    Indeed!
    If the observed Doppler shift is D,
    then the measured speed of the Earth is v = cโ‹…(Dยฒโˆ’1)/(Dยฒ+1)


    Which always is < c, and never is 4c.
    And it not only 'apparent'.
    The speed appear to be v because it is v.


    It takes thirty seconds.

    About right.


    But explain to me why Doctor Hachel is a moron, why he did not give the
    most beautiful notion of the theory of special relativity (better than Einstein and Minkowski), and why he says that the distance traveled does
    not matter. be a contraction of type distances D'=D.sqrt(1-Voยฒ/cยฒ) i.e.
    7.2 ly.

    I can't explain why you seem to think Doctor Hachel is a moron.

    But it's very easy to explain why Doctor Richard Hachel's
    'theory' is falsified:

    It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
    in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.

    Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
    in the Large Hadron Collider is 6927โ‹…c.

    Inevitable conclusion:
    Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.

    A non falsified theory is more beautiful than a falsified theory,
    don't you agree?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 6 14:47:49 2024
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  14:34, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :
    Den 06.04.2024 03:49, skrev Richard Hachel:

    Which always is < c, and never is 4c.

    Bon, t'arrรชtes tes conneries?

    On a dรฉjร  Jean-Pierre Python qui fait le con sur les forums franรงais,
    si maintenant quelqu'un de la valeur de Paul B. Andersen fait le con sur
    les forums anglo-saxons, on va vite avoir la rue Michel, comme disait l'excellent Charles de Gaulle.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 6 14:56:50 2024
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  14:34, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :

    A non falsified theory is more beautiful than a falsified theory,
    don't you agree?

    That's what I said.

    Mais c'est sur les falsifications qu'on ne s'entend plus.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 6 17:14:33 2024
    W dniu 06.04.2024 oย 14:36, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
    Den 06.04.2024 03:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    Please explain to me how, in Langevin's traveler, the proper time of
    Stella's return journey is 9 years.

    It is very easy to explain.

    The proper time of Stella's return journey is what
    The Special Theory of Relativity predicts it is.

    Of course, The Special Theory of Relativity
    predicts two different, excluding each other
    values for that. Happensd to inconsistent mumble
    of an idiot declaring that common sense is
    just a collection of prejudices.




    https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf

    The Special Theory of Relativity is tested
    by innumerable experiments and is falsified by none.

    In the meantime in the real world, of course,
    forbidden by your insane cult "improper" clocks
    keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
    always did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 7 14:45:55 2024
    Den 06.04.2024 16:56, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  14:34, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :

    It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
    in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.

    Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
    in the Large Hadron Collider is 6927โ‹…c.

    Inevitable conclusion:
    Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.

    A non falsified theory is more beautiful than a falsified theory,
    don't you agree?



    That's what I said.

    And you know of course which is the less beautiful falsified theory.


    BTW, you never addressed what you claimed was impossible
    in my posting below.


    03.04.2024 Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
    Den 02.04.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 02/04/2024 ร  14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :

    Let's stay in the real world.

    The only objects moving at "relativistic speeds" we
    can visually observe, are astronomical objects, like
    the matter in the jets from some galaxies (from their
    central black hole).

    The only motion we can visually observe, is transverse motion.

    So if the jet is coming right at us, we will see the matter
    at exactly the same point at the centre of the galaxy, the apparent
    speed of the matter is zero.

    But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
    angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
    the apparent transverse velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

    No. It's impossible.

    There are _many_ "superluminal" jets where the matter in
    the jet appear to have a speed faster than c.


    Please explain why you wrote: "No. It's impossible."

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 9 14:26:26 2024
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  14:34, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :


    Explain to me why the apparent speed of the earth when it returns is
    Vapp=4c.

    I suppose you mean what the speed of the Earth will appear to
    be for the traveller on his return trip.

    The only way the traveller can measure this speed is by observing
    the Doppler shift of the sunlight reflected from the Earth.
    (Balmer etc., you know)



    Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

    When Stella has just finished her U-turn, we imagine that she has made a
    large arc of a circle still at the same speed of 0.8c (tangential speed)
    she then prepares to rush towards the earth for the return.
    The speed being 0.8c, as on the outward journey, she sees the earth coming
    back towards her with an apparent speed of 4c.

    And this throughout his return (otherwise you will admit that it is
    absurd).

    No matter how you measure this speed (telescope, beeps, Doppler effects,
    etc.), you will always have Vo=0.8c, Vr=4/3c and Vapp=4c.

    What I would like you to understand is that all of this is immensely
    coherent, when it is ME who explains it, and no one else, but that for
    reasons which are not scientific, the โ€œphysicistsโ€ refuse to listen to
    me.

    I have been begging them for years to listen to me, and to affirm like me
    "that the effects of physics are perfectly reciprocal by permutation of
    frame of reference". Just as Terrence SEES the rocket three times longer, Stella SEES the distance to be covered three times greater, and not 12 ly,
    but 36 ly.

    It's this enormous, masterful, brilliant slap given by Doctor Hachel that physicists cannot understand. They therefore conclude that Doctor Hachel
    is the moron.

    They are incapable of understanding, and it is by braying like a donkey
    that they have before their eyes one of the most beautiful understandings
    of the theory of relativity ever given, and not this filthy bullshit of an absolutely abstract and ridiculous Minkowski block.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 9 21:16:57 2024
    Den 09.04.2024 16:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  14:34, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :
    Le 06/04/2024 ร  02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    Explain to me why the apparent speed of the earth when it returns is
    Vapp=4c.


    I suppose you mean what the speed of the Earth will appear to
    be for the traveller on his return trip.

    The only way the traveller can measure this speed is by observing
    the Doppler shift of the sunlight reflected from the Earth.
    (Balmer etc., you know)



    Yes, that's exactly what I mean.


    If the observed Doppler shift is D,
    then the measured speed of the Earth is v = cโ‹…(Dยฒโˆ’1)/(Dยฒ+1)

    Which always is < c, and never is 4c.


    When Stella has just finished her U-turn, we imagine that she has made a large arc of a circle still at the same speed of 0.8c (tangential speed)
    she then prepares to rush towards the earth for the return.
    The speed being 0.8c, as on the outward journey, she sees the earth
    coming back towards her with an apparent speed of 4c.

    If the velocity v is a long the line of sight, then the angular
    diameter of the Earth will increase proportionally with time,
    but the Earth will appear to be stationary, so its apparent
    speed is zero.

    But if the Earth is approaching Stella at an angle ฯ• from
    the line of sight, she can measure the angular velocity,
    and when the distance is known, she can calculate
    the apparent transverse velocity, which indeed may be
    higher than c.

    Vapp = vโ‹…sin(ฯ•)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(ฯ•))

    For example, if ฯ• = ฯ€/4 and v = 0.8c, Vapp = 1.3c

    If Vapp โ‰  0, Stella will never reach the Earth, obviously.
    So this apparent speed is of no interest for the twin 'paradox',
    even if it is interesting for 'superluminal jets'.

    So what's your point?


    And this throughout his return (otherwise you will admit that it is
    absurd).

    No matter how you measure this speed (telescope, beeps, Doppler effects, etc.), you will always have Vo=0.8c Vr=4/3c and Vapp=4c.

    Rumours say you are a Doctor of psychiatry.
    If that's the case, what diagnosis would you give the 'me' person below?


    What I would like you to understand is that all of this is immensely coherent, when it is ME who explains it, and no one else, but that for reasons which are not scientific, the โ€œphysicistsโ€ refuse to listen to me.

    I have been begging them for years to listen to me, and to affirm like
    me "that the effects of physics are perfectly reciprocal by permutation
    of frame of reference". Just as Terrence SEES the rocket three times
    longer, Stella SEES the distance to be covered three times greater, and
    not 12 ly, but 36 ly.

    It's this enormous, masterful, brilliant slap given by Doctor Hachel
    that physicists cannot understand. They therefore conclude that Doctor
    Hachel is the moron.

    Megalomania ?


    They are incapable of understanding, and it is by braying like a donkey
    that they have before their eyes one of the most beautiful
    understandings of the theory of relativity ever given, and not this
    filthy bullshit of an absolutely abstract and ridiculous Minkowski block. R.H.

    Yawn.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 9 20:49:42 2024
    Le 09/04/2024 ร  21:14, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :
    Den 09.04.2024 16:26, skrev Richard Hachel:

    For example, if ฯ• = ฯ€/4 and v = 0.8c, Vapp = 1.3c

    If Vapp โ‰  0, Stella will never reach the Earth, obviously.
    So this apparent speed is of no interest for the twin 'paradox',
    even if it is interesting for 'superluminal jets'.

    So what's your point?

    If ฯ• = ฯ€/4 then if I call ยต the angle that the direction of my aim
    makes with the direction of the object to be studied, I have: ยต=3ฯ€/4.

    Then Vapp=Vo/(1+cosยต.Vo/c)=1.842c

    When Vapp'=Vapp.cosฯ•=1.3025c

    and Vapp"(transversal apparence)=Vapp.sinฯ•=1.3025c

    On this, I agree with you.

    The apparent transverse speed of a body moving at an angle ยต equal to
    3ฯ€/4 is greater than the apparent speed of this same body moving purely transversely.
    This is very very counterintuitive, but it is entirely accurate.

    On this, you are absolutely right, and your calcul is correct.



    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 9 21:49:03 2024
    Le 09/04/2024 ร  21:14, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :

    If Vapp โ‰  0, Stella will never reach the Earth, obviously.
    So this apparent speed is of no interest for the twin 'paradox',
    even if it is interesting for 'superluminal jets'.

    No, you're the one in the wrong here.
    Apparent speeds are, precisely, of capital interest for the Langevin
    traveler.
    Moreover, if we properly understand the stroke of genius of live-live
    vision for any direct observer, as is the case with protaginists who
    experience EVERYTHING live-live from start to finish, and the tremendous upheaval conceptually, we see where Langevin's paradox was nestled, that
    is to say in the spatial zoom effect that we accept for Terrence but not
    for Stella. However, we must accept both.
    "The effects of physics are reciprocal by permutation of frame of
    reference, including apparent effects!".
    It is this formidable equation that you come up against: D'=D.sqrt(1-Voยฒ/cยฒ)/(1+cosยต.Vo/c)
    You accept it for Terrence looking at Stella and her rocket.
    But the terrible counter-intuitiveness of the reciprocal effect has disconcerted physicists for 120 years. They do not understand that the
    same, strictly the same effect occurs for the opposite speaker, and that
    Stella does not cross 7.2al twice, but twice 36al forwards, and twice 4 al backwards.
    In total, she will have crossed 72al/18years=4c forward,
    and 8al/18ans=0.4444c towards the rear of its rocket.
    This is very important to understand, if we want to understand the
    paradox. And this is the fundamental key that no one had the trigger to understand.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Apr 10 00:54:54 2024
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 06/04/2024 ร  02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :
    Why is it "absurd"?

    It's as absurd as believing that you can draw a student a round square.
    As the student does not succeed, we blame the pencil, then we blame the paper.

    That is another irrelevant mumble. You need to have a cogent argument,
    not mumbling a false comparison.
    ... but the student still does not know how to draw a round square.

    Tachyons aren't round squares. Irrelevant simile.

    This is what is happening with the speed of light speed, or body
    propagation or physical laws.

    No, it's not. Energy and momentum are the basis, not round squares
    or an undefined Vo. The basic relationship is E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4
    m^2 positive: bradyons, 0 < v < c; m^2 zero: luxons (photons); v = c
    m^2 negative: tachyons, c < v < infinity -- completes the symmetry.

    We simply cannot.

    We simply can, even if you cannot.

    [Irrelevant baloney deleted.]

    It is simply as illogical, in OUR UNIVERSE, as to return before having
    left, or to go faster than an instantaneous interaction.

    Tachyons can't do that, so this assertion is irrelevant, too.

    z

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 10 10:35:51 2024
    Le 10/04/2024 ร  02:54, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Tachyons aren't round squares.

    My dear sir, you are a dirty liar.
    Tachyons are round squares in the sick minds of a few physicists in search
    of glory.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 10 15:26:34 2024
    Den 09.04.2024 23:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 09/04/2024 ร  21:14, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :

    If the velocity v is a long the line of sight, then the angular
    diameter of the Earth will increase proportionally with time,
    but the Earth will appear to be stationary, so its apparent
    speed is zero.

    But if the Earth is approaching Stella at an angle ฯ• from
    the line of sight, she can measure the angular velocity,
    and when the distance is known, she can calculate
    the apparent transverse velocity, which indeed may be
    higher than c.

    Vapp = vโ‹…sin(ฯ•)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(ฯ•))

    For example, if ฯ• = ฯ€/4 and v = 0.8c, Vapp = 1.3c

    If Vapp โ‰  0, Stella will never reach the Earth, obviously.
    So this apparent speed is of no interest for the twin 'paradox',
    even if it is interesting for 'superluminal jets'.



    No, you're the one in the wrong here.
    Apparent speeds are, precisely, of capital interest for the Langevin traveler.

    No apparent phenomenon can have physical consequences.

    You can kick and scream and whine all you want, your "theory"
    is both inconsistent and experimental falsified.

    The below is mindless nonsense.

    Moreover, if we properly understand the stroke of genius of live-live
    vision for any direct observer, as is the case with protaginists who experience EVERYTHING live-live from start to finish, and the tremendous upheaval conceptually, we see where Langevin's paradox was nestled, that
    is to say in the spatial zoom effect that we accept for Terrence but not
    for Stella. However, we must accept both.
    "The effects of physics are reciprocal by permutation of frame of
    reference, including apparent effects!".
    It is this formidable equation that you come up against: D'=D.sqrt(1-Voยฒ/cยฒ)/(1+cosยต.Vo/c)
    You accept it for Terrence looking at Stella and her rocket.
    But the terrible counter-intuitiveness of the reciprocal effect has disconcerted physicists for 120 years. They do not understand that the
    same, strictly the same effect occurs for the opposite speaker, and that Stella does not cross 7.2al twice, but twice 36al forwards, and twice 4
    al backwards.
    In total, she will have crossed 72al/18years=4c forward,
    and 8al/18ans=0.4444c towards the rear of its rocket.
    This is very important to understand, if we want to understand the
    paradox. And this is the fundamental key that no one had the trigger to understand.

    R.H.

    THE END.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 10 15:03:02 2024
    Le 10/04/2024 ร  15:24, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :
    Den 09.04.2024 23:49, skrev Richard Hachel:

    No apparent phenomenon can have physical consequences.

    :))

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 10 14:40:55 2024
    Le 10/04/2024 ร  15:24, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :
    Den 09.04.2024 23:49, skrev Richard Hachel:

    THE END.

    I find you optimistic. :))

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Chris M. Thomasson on Thu Apr 11 13:32:49 2024
    Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

    On 4/10/2024 3:35 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 10/04/2024 ร  02:54, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    Tachyons aren't round squares.

    My dear sir, you are a dirty liar.
    Tachyons are round squares in the sick minds of a few physicists in search of glory.

    Bob Lazar mentions something about how gravity is a wave. The idea of gravitons is not correct...

    https://youtu.be/Fqd6kdg_EaA

    Grain of salt indeed, however, it is interesting to me.

    You seem to be unaware of wave/particle duality: Lambda = h/p, where
    p = particle momentum.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Apr 11 13:27:33 2024
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 10/04/2024 ร  02:54, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    Richard Hachel wrote nonsense because:

    Tachyons aren't round squares.

    My dear sir, you are a dirty liar.

    You are projecting your own dishonesty, Richard. I may speculate, but I
    don't tell lies like you do.

    Tachyons are round squares in the sick minds of a few physicists in search
    of glory.

    R.H.


    Ridiculous character assassination. I gave you links to some papers from Charles Schwartz (a REAL doctor of theoretical physics) but you obviously
    are incapable of understanding simple English. He is a professor emeritus
    of UC Berkeley, so he has no interest in monetary or "glory" as you put it. There's no glory anyway in espousing tachyon theory. You are an ass, sir.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 11 18:14:40 2024
    W dniu 11.04.2024 oย 15:27, gharnagel pisze:
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 10/04/2024 ร  02:54, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a รฉcrit :

    Richard Hachel wrote nonsense because:

    Tachyons aren't round squares.

    My dear sir, you are a dirty liar.

    You are projecting your own dishonesty, Richard.ย  I may speculate, but I don't tell lies like you do.

    Of course you do. Of course, just like all other
    followers of The Shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 11 16:26:27 2024
    Le 11/04/2024 ร  18:14, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcrit :
    W dniu 11.04.2024 oย 15:27, gharnagel pisze:
    Richard Hachel wrote:


    I don't tell lies.

    Of course you do.

    I doubted it. He lies.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Apr 11 21:22:13 2024
    Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 11/04/2024 ร  18:14, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcrit :

    W dniu 11.04.2024 oย 15:27, gharnagel pisze:

    Richard Hachel wrote:


    :-))

    Hachel tries to blot out his abusive attack on
    renowned physicists, even dearly departed ones,
    by deleting his scurrilous attack from the
    record.

    I don't tell lies.

    Of course you do.


    Wozzie-boy is projecting again.

    I doubted it. He lies.

    R.H.


    Nope. On the other hand, your collusion with
    a verified liar and confirmed nutcase (in the
    form of Maciej) doesn't harmonize well with
    your attempt to present yourself as a relativity
    luminary.

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