• Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual =?UTF-8?Q?desert=3F?=

    From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 30 13:15:06 2024
    Le 30/03/2024 à 13:20, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 29.03.2024 14:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
    For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of
    relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.
    I have missed that.
    I suppose you must have written a paper describing your
    experiment and its results. Is it available?

    I would like to include your experiment here: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

    If your experiment really falsifies SR, you will have made
    your place in the history of physics.

    Congratulations!

    I think that you, Paul, have not yet understood the depths of human
    behavior.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 30 13:31:21 2024
    Le 30/03/2024 à 13:20, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

    If your experiment really falsifies SR, you will have made
    your place in the history of physics.

    Congratulations!



    I have already had my experiences for 40 years or more.

    Two crucial experiences:
    “Find the momentum of a particle, and you will get
    p=m.v/sqrt(1-v²/c²)”.
    “Place polarized lenses, and you will obtain paired photons on the other side, by instantaneous transfer of information.”

    So the experiences have proven me right for a long time (but not the men because they are stupid and arrogant as hell).

    The problem is not even experimental, but theoretical.

    My theory is simple and very clear.

    Minkowski's is contradictory, ridiculous and incoherent in the description
    of a simple Langevin.

    I have the theoretical strength and experimental evidence.

    What more can be said?

    Who cannot, being convinced of the validity of what I say, see that there
    is no longer a scientific problem but a global psychiatric problem?

    Jesus Christ said the same thing “But you guys are really sick, you
    really need a doctor”.

    The problem is NOT scientific.

    He is human.

    "We don't want this Doctor Hachel to rule over us, we have big penises. At night, we bring our women all to orgasm."

    Freud says the same thing. Jesus says the same thing. Pascal says the same thing. Nietzsche says the same thing.

    Always, always, always, the same phenomenon occurs again.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 31 12:30:16 2024
    Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

    Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.

    Can you show me a little fact of it.

    A very small.

    And I am silent, gentlemen.

    Even the Nobel Prize winner Alain Aspect says that I am right about the principle of non-locality, and the greatest mathematician in the world,
    Henri Poincaré, says that I am right when I write "There will therefore
    exist an impenetrable limit speed which will extend to all particles,
    bodies and laws of the universe.
    I simply combine the two.
    Scientists can't.
    Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists who
    don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 31 12:23:59 2024
    Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

    SR is a consistent theory.

    No.

    She is inconsistent and ridiculous in front of a simple doctor (me)
    who tells him that there is a Langevin paradox and that no one for 120
    years has succeeded in solving it.

    It is common knowledge that one can only respond to him with hatred and
    insult.

    Which is NOT scientific.

    She is completely wrong in accelerated frames of reference and rotating
    frames of reference. It is not normal.

    Special Relativity is incapable of approving what Richard Hachel says, and
    can only always, always, always lower its pants, which is NOT NORMAL.

    If Richard Hachel says: "Stella's time is 9 years for the return", are the physicists in their pants? And why? Because it's false? No way! Because
    it's true, and they know it, and they teach it, but it would hurt them to
    admit it.

    If Richard Hachel says: "The apparent speed of an object moving at 0.8c,
    it is 4c, if the object is moving towards me". They answer: "No, we know
    it's true, but if you say it, because you're scum, they'll say it's not
    true."

    All this enters into madness on their part, but into the most intelligent
    of madness, that of hatred and massive refutation.

    All this to block the way for anyone who says: “Hachel is right, and 9*4=36”.

    It is to say the opposite which is inconsistent.

    It's a stupid cock contest.

    “We don’t want this man to rule over us.”

    It's very Freudian, even on the scale of the biggest names in world
    science.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 31 14:54:19 2024
    Le 31/03/2024 à 13:33, Volney a écrit :
    On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

    Since experiment agrees with special relativity, it's obvious that
    Richard Hachel is wrong.

    Your remark is biased.

    I'll let you think about why.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 31 15:06:43 2024
    Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :
    On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

    Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
    who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

    The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
    Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
    (within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's predictions.
    Just one.

    One will not be enough more than ten.

    I think you still don't understand the human problem.

    Look at what is happening today in Ukraine. Proof will not be enough to demonstrate that it is the Westerners who are seeking war with the
    Russians and not the other way around.

    You can put ten, twenty proofs, you won't succeed.

    We won't tell you, if you turn on your TV (in France): "Putin intervened
    in Ukraine, because he cannot do without Crimea
    as an essential war port, because it can no longer tolerate eight years of bombings and massacres of the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine, the
    ban on speaking Russian, the presence of thermo-nuclear missiles on its
    border.

    No way.

    We tell you, minute after minute, on French television: "Putin is evil, he invaded Ukraine, he will then invade Europe, and he will eat the children
    in the incubators and rape all the little girls aged six years".

    That's what they tell you today on television.

    And you say to me: "Give us proof that what you say about the SR is true"?

    But you don't understand anything, Mac, you don't UNDERSTAND anything.

    I gave cases of proof.

    Usenet is your friend.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 31 21:13:58 2024
    Le 31/03/2024 à 17:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
    I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
    have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
    for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
    relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.


    So we will have disagreed on everything.
    But it does not matter.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 1 11:50:15 2024
    Le 01/04/2024 à 10:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
    On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    So we will have disagreed on everything.
    But it does not matter.

    That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?

    Why use the word “lies”.
    If you think I'm wrong, use the word "errors".

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 1 20:03:56 2024
    Le 01/04/2024 à 21:58, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

    Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.

    Can you show me a little fact of it.

    Again? I have done it several times, but OK:

    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.

    Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.


    A very small.

    And I am silent, gentlemen.

    Even the Nobel Prize winner Alain Aspect says that I am right about the
    principle of non-locality,

    Can you please explain how non-locality affects the predictions of SR?
    Does it make any of the following confirmations of SR invalid?

    https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

    the greatest mathematician in the world,
    Henri Poincaré, says that I am right when I write "There will therefore
    exist an impenetrable limit speed which will extend to all particles,
    bodies and laws of the universe.

    Quite.
    And we know that the impenetrable limit speed is c.

    So why do you claim that the speed of protons can be 6927⋅c?

    I simply combine the two.

    So if you combine non-locality and the principle that c is
    an impenetrable limit speed, you find that the speed of
    protons can be 6927⋅c ?

    Scientists can't.
    Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
    who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

    Your falsified theory is obviously much better than
    the theory that's never falsified.
    Right? :-D

    Je ne prends pas la peine de répondre.

    Ca n'en vaut malheureusement pas la peine.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 1 20:23:42 2024
    Le 01/04/2024 à 21:59, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    measure any speed.

    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.

    But NO!

    Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)

    If v=c and cosµ=0 (tranversal move), Vapp=c.

    Paul, Paul, je te supplie d'arrêter de dire n'importe quoi.

    Cela tourne au ridicule.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 2 13:25:35 2024
    Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :


    Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)
    If v=c and cos=0 (tranversal move), Vapp=c.
    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 transversal 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 transversal velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

    No. It's impossible.

    “There will therefore be an impassable speed limit which will extend to
    all particles, objects, or laws of physics.”
    Doctor Richard Hachel November 9, 1985 Conference in
    Wroclaw (Polska).

    You cannot have an observable speed (Vo) greater than c.

    Which is also synonymous with any speed measured by a transverse observer.

    For apparent speeds, you can have, if µ is negative (µ=0 to -180°),
    apparent speeds
    greater than that of light.

    I'll let you calculate what is the observable speed necessary to obtain an apparent speed greater than that of light if µ=180°

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 2 13:29:58 2024
    Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 01.04.2024 22:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

    http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/superlum/m87jet_hst_big.jpg

    That's what I say.

    But here the jet is not transversal.

    Well, yes, Vapp > c



    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 2 13:48:09 2024
    Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    The "basic effect" is simple:

    Paul, you're talking nonsense.

    The apparent speed of an object crossing my line of sight,
    is like Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) where µ is the angle that the direction of
    the object makes, and the direction of my aim.

    If this object moves towards me, then cosµ=-1.

    As Jean-Pierre Python rightly says, who for once is not mistaken, we
    obtain v_app=v/(1-v/c)

    In Hachel writing: Vapp=Vo/(1-Vo/c)

    We want to know at what speed the object must move so that its apparent displacement is equal to or greater than c.

    Vo=Vapp/(1+Vapp/c)

    If Vapp=c or more, Vo>c/2

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 2 18:39:38 2024
    Le 02/04/2024 à 15:48, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    The "basic effect" is simple:

    Paul, you're talking nonsense.

    The apparent speed of an object crossing my line of sight,
    is like Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) where µ is the angle that the direction of the
    object makes, and the direction of my aim.

    If this object moves towards me, then cosµ=-1.

    As Jean-Pierre Python rightly says, who for once is not mistaken, we obtain v_app=v/(1-v/c)

    What I addressed in my article, where the object is moving along the line
    of sight,
    (either receeding or approaching) is NOT what Paul is talking about.

    You've still not properly read what he wrote.

    You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

    And a pathological liar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 2 19:18:55 2024
    Le 02/04/2024 à 21:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:

    You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

    And a pathological liar.
    All the worshippers of your idiot guru are.
    BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

    You're not going well these days, Maciej, are you? Sad.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 2 20:59:15 2024
    Le 02/04/2024 à 21:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:

    You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

    And a pathological liar.
    All the worshippers of your idiot guru are.
    BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

    I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is known on physics forums for being a clown.
    He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of
    special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he doesn't
    master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the world's best
    critic in physical and mathematical science.
    The good doctor Hachel (that's me) has already told him a hundred times to reread correctly what is written, and to consider that there is no fault
    in what is said.
    But he persists in finding faults and defending ridiculous points of view.
    He has stubbornly wanted to prove, for years, that Doctor Hachel is an
    idiot on all points (not only in special relativity), but without ever succeeding.
    It's a shame to see him wasting time unnecessarily like this.
    But you can't change a man.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 2 21:39:07 2024
    Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 02/04/2024 à 21:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:

    You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

    And a pathological liar.
    All the worshippers of your idiot guru are.
    BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

    I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is known on physics forums for being a clown.
    He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he doesn't master at all. He
    nevertheless believes himself to be the world's best critic in physical and mathematical science.

    Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.

    You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to
    have one and pretending himself to be "the best relativist physicist" in
    the World. Which is pathetic given how your claims contradict the
    principle of Relativity in an obvious way, as it has been shown numerous
    times.

    Any moderately scientificaly educated person can point out your obvious mistakes.
    As a matter of fact of lot did.

    The good doctor Hachel (that's me) has already told him a hundred times to reread correctly what is written, and to consider that there is no fault in what
    is said.
    But he persists in finding faults and defending ridiculous points of view.
    He has stubbornly wanted to prove, for years, that Doctor Hachel is an idiot on
    all points (not only in special relativity), but without ever succeeding.

    You are indeed an pathological liar, idiot, liar and deluded mythomaniac
    in numerous fields.

    Fact is that your claims can be proven contradictory and absurd, fact is
    that they have been.

    At the point to consider Wozniak as an ally in your egomaniac fight, which
    is utterly ridiculous.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 3 05:39:35 2024
    Le 03/04/2024 à 07:15, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 02.04.2024 o 23:39, Python pisze:
    Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 02/04/2024 à 21:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:

    You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

    And a pathological liar.
    All the worshippers  of your idiot guru are.
    BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

    I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is
    known on physics forums for being a clown.
    He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of
    special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he doesn't
    master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the world's best
    critic in physical and mathematical science.

    Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.

    You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to

    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? Is "for any element of
    the domain" clause still confusing you?

    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)

    "Le terme est concurrencé par celui de fonction, bien que celui-ci
    désigne parfois plus spécifiquement les applications dont le but est un ensemble de nombres et parfois, au contraire, englobe plus largement les relations pour lesquelles chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ est
    relié à au plus un élément de l'ensemble d'arrivée."

    Now shut the fuck up, idiot...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 3 21:01:28 2024
    Le 03/04/2024 à 08:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 03.04.2024 o 07:39, Python pisze:
    Le 03/04/2024 à 07:15, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 02.04.2024 o 23:39, Python pisze:
    Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 02/04/2024 à 21:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:

    You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

    And a pathological liar.
    All the worshippers  of your idiot guru are.
    BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

    I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is
    known on physics forums for being a clown.
    He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of >>>>> special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he
    doesn't master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the
    world's best critic in physical and mathematical science.

    Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.

    You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to

    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? Is "for any element of
    the domain" clause still confusing you?

    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)

    "Le terme est concurrencé par celui de fonction, bien que celui-ci
    désigne parfois plus spécifiquement les applications dont le but est un
    ensemble de nombres et parfois, au contraire, englobe plus largement les
    relations pour lesquelles chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ est
    relié à au plus un élément de l'ensemble d'arrivée."

    Now shut the fuck up, idiot...

    Still confused; you're such an idiot.
    Well, under the link you provided -
    click blue "fonction" word and read:

    "et parfois, au contraire ... est relié à au plus un élément "

    You can't read French, can you Maciej? Do you need a translator?

    En mathématiques, une fonction permet de définir un résultat (le plus souvent numérique) pour chaque élément d’un ensemble appelé domaine.

    Of course, whatever you'll read, being
    stupid is not curable.

    Oh dear... How come that one of "the better logicians Humanity ever had"
    cannot grasp that a single world can have multiple definitions even among
    a single community at a given time. Context is quite a too subtle concept
    for you.

    Fact is that "starting set" ("ensemble de départ") and domain ("domaine
    de
    definition") are, even today, not assumed to be identical in the French educational system. You can whine as much as you want, it is a fact.

    And it doesn't really matter, but you only focus on what does not matter, aren't you Maciej? Because you are soooo confused about when things
    matter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 4 00:08:49 2024
    Le 03/04/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 03.04.2024 o 22:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

    Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
    can exceed c. So what?

    The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
    all events occurring
    at the same time ; or again, being characterized by the set of all
    physical phenomena
    taking place at the same time; we should be able, at least considering all
    the components
    fixed being in a given inertial system, to speak of absolute simultaneity,
    of synchronization
    cosmic, or common calendar -- these terms then being likely to acquire
    real significance
    physical tion -- if we could, without it varying, transpose the universal simultaneity specific to a
    particular observer to all the other inertial observers present in this
    same frame of reference.
    It would be enough to find any signal, or any action, by which a body
    A could
    interact instantly with a body B, that is to say by means of information propagating infinitely
    quickly, so that this notion of absolute simultaneity can be
    experimentally proven.
    We could then say that the action induced by body A was instantly transmitted to body B, or
    that the action produced by body A was carried out at the same time as its detection by body B, and that it
    exists, de facto, between A and B, a sort of reciprocal and absolute simultaneity.
    We could also imagine a round trip signal carried out over the
    distance separating A from B, and carried out at
    means of infinitely rapid information, such that the departure and return
    times of
    information is simultaneous. It would easily come to mind that if the two watches A and B are
    well tuned, the notion of general coexistence of the things of the
    universe in perfect simultaneity would be
    thus demonstrated.
    However, this proof does not exist.
    We know that a body can act on another body at a distance, for
    example in the form of a wave.
    electromagnetic, in the form of a mechanical shock transmitted along a
    rigid rod, or under the
    form of a gravitational interaction, but we have never found a signal that
    is infinitely fast,
    or remote action that is instantaneous. It rather seems, in fact, that
    there exists, in nature, a kind
    impassable speed limit, which we will find in any Galilean reference frame considered, and which will
    extend to all particles and all properties of physics.


    So, even your idiot guru had to finally abandon
    this nonsense in his GR shit.

    The three distinct notions of classical observable speed (Vo), apparent
    speed (Vapp) and real speeds (Vr) should not be confused.

    No observable speed can exceed c, while the other two types offer no
    limits.

    R.H.

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