All three of your posts are incorrect.
W dniu 19.03.2024 o 22:15, JanPB pisze:
All three of your posts are incorrect.
And poor idiot Jan is a queen of England.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
Reasonable people who have investigated have been persuaded. The anti-relativity cranks not persuaded aren't reasonable.
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
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!!!!
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.
I am not here to convince anyone of anything.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
science.This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the
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
Without an aether, the state of physics is little different than "angels pulling/pushing around objects in accordance with the force laws".
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/
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?
There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects
of an aether?
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
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, Schrdinger 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?
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 ε₀ and μ₀. 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:
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 ε₀ and μ₀. 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 sense—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.
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 ε₀ and μ₀. 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 sense—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]
motion.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
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 sense—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 Schrödinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf
I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrödinger is.
[...] you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.
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,
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.
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!
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
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
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?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 29.03.2024 o 14:48, gharnagel pisze:
effects > > > of an aether?
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
aether.
Tom Roberts wrote:
They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of
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?
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,
W dniu 29.03.2024 o 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. 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.
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 Schrödinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf
I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrödinger 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.
W dniu 29.03.2024 o 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.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 29.03.2024 o 17:12, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:works,
You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
your wannabe gedanken delusions.
Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS
It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
halfbrain.
Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works
fables about it again. In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks" ONLY on the earth.
dniu 30.03.2024 o 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.
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?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
dniu 30.03.2024 o 18:28, gharnagel pisze:
The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
halfbrain.It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works
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" ONLYSomehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
on the earth.
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.
Well, not on board the satellites. They were no longer "good"
clocks to a hypothetical denizen aboard the satellite.
W dniu 30.03.2024 o 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?
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.
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. 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.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 30.03.2024 o 20:36, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believeseveryone 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.
Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of youhad to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
and your fellow idiots.
And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again. The GPS staff
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.
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.
W dniu 31.03.2024 o 04:19, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 30.03.2024 o 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. 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 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.
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, 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.
Rave and spit,
poor halfbrain trash,
[Repetitious lies deleted for sanitary reasons]
Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:
W dniu 31.03.2024 o 04:19, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 30.03.2024 o 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. 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.
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.
W dniu 31.03.2024 o 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.
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.
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. 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.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.03.2024 o 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.
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)
That's because time really is relative, as Maciej
denies.
Rave and spit,Wozzie-boy's posts. So he has hoisted himself on his own petard.
My "raving and spitting" was rebranded from stupid, no-brain
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.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
dniu 30.03.2024 o 18:28, gharnagel pisze:
The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
halfbrain.It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works
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" ONLYSomehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
on the earth.
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.
On 3/30/2024 3:36 PM, gharnagel wrote:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
dniu 30.03.2024 o 18:28, gharnagel pisze:
The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
halfbrain.It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works
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.
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"?
You're such an agnorant idiot,
even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
Maciej Wozniak dissembled:
W dniu 02.04.2024 o17:34, 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
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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.
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.
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?
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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.
Le 04/04/2024 à 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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.
W dniu 04.04.2024 o 20:46, Python pisze:
Le 04/04/2024 à 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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?
But it remains the human knowledge of people who, in order to be
interesting, speak in Latin, or in English, to say anything.
Le 04/04/2024 à 20:46, Python a écrit :
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).
C-News, a channel which almost
exclusively spreads lies, hate speech and racism.
Le 04/04/2024 à 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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.
Le 04/04/2024 à 16:48, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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,
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.
Le 04/04/2024 à 21:58, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 04.04.2024 o 20:46, Python pisze:
Le 04/04/2024 à 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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?
W dniu 04.04.2024 o 22:07, Python pisze:
Le 04/04/2024 à 21:58, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 04.04.2024 o 20:46, Python pisze:
Le 04/04/2024 à 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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".
Le 04/04/2024 à 21:58, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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?
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Le 04/04/2024 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a crit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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.
Le 04/04/2024 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a crit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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.
On 4/4/2024 3:50 PM, Python wrote:
Le 04/04/2024 à 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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, ru⚡︎⚡︎ia 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.
Le 05/04/2024 à 06:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 04.04.2024 o 22:07, Python pisze:
Le 04/04/2024 à 21:58, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 04.04.2024 o 20:46, Python pisze:
Le 04/04/2024 à 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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? >>>>>>>>You are right, your wife (you will offer her my deep respect for >>>>>>> her television curiosity) watches TF1, LCI and BFM-TV.
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 >>>>>>>
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...
"the sine function" and "la fonction sinus" are not the
same thing, according to you, because the words are "different".
On 2024-04-04 21:25:59 +0000, Volney said:
On 4/4/2024 3:50 PM, Python wrote:
Le 04/04/2024 à 15:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-04-04 10:32:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 04/04/2024 à 11:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
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.
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 04/04/2024 à 16:48, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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.
Le 05/04/2024 à 04:09, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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.
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.
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.
Le 06/04/2024 à 02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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-Vo²/c²) 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.
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.
Richard Hachel wrote:
Why is it "absurd"?
Le 06/04/2024 à 02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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-Vo²/c²) i.e.
7.2 ly.
Den 06.04.2024 03:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Which always is < c, and never is 4c.
A non falsified theory is more beautiful than a falsified theory,
don't you agree?
Den 06.04.2024 03:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 06/04/2024 à 02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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.
Le 06/04/2024 à 14:34, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
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 6927⋅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.
Den 02.04.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:speed of the matter is zero.
Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
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
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.
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)
Le 06/04/2024 à 14:34, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Le 06/04/2024 à 02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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 = c⋅(D²−1)/(D²+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.
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 “physicists” 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.
Den 09.04.2024 16:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
For example, if ϕ = π/4 and v = 0.8c, Vapp = 1.3c
If Vapp ≠ 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 Vapp ≠ 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'.
Le 06/04/2024 à 02:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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.
... but the student still does not know how to draw a round square.
This is what is happening with the speed of light speed, or body
propagation or physical laws.
We simply 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.
Richard Hachel wrote:
Tachyons aren't round squares.
Le 09/04/2024 à 21:14, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
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 ϕ 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 = v⋅sin(ϕ)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(ϕ))
For example, if ϕ = π/4 and v = 0.8c, Vapp = 1.3c
If Vapp ≠ 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-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.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.
Den 09.04.2024 23:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
No apparent phenomenon can have physical consequences.
Den 09.04.2024 23:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
THE END.
On 4/10/2024 3:35 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 10/04/2024 à 02:54, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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.
Le 10/04/2024 à 02:54, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote nonsense because:
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.
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 10/04/2024 à 02:54, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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.
W dniu 11.04.2024 o 15:27, gharnagel pisze:
Richard Hachel wrote:
I don't tell lies.
Of course you do.
Le 11/04/2024 à 18:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 11.04.2024 o 15:27, gharnagel pisze:
Richard Hachel wrote:
I don't tell lies.
Of course you do.
I doubted it. He lies.
R.H.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 376 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 96:40:34 |
| Calls: | 8,047 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,045 |
| Messages: | 5,835,789 |