We set To²=Tr²+Et²

It’s great, life is above all very easy.

We take Stella, we calculate her proper time (Tr=4.776 years), her
improper time (validated by Terrence, To=12.915 years), her constant speed Vo=0.929c, her distance traveled to Tau Ceti (12al).

We take Bella, in an accelerated reference frame at 1.052 ly/year², we calculate its proper time, its improper time, and the distance traveled.

In RRH (Hachel's special relativity), if we place the proper time in y,
the distance traveled in x,
and the improper tense on the LENGTH of the hypotenuse, all this still
works very well.

Even in accelerated frames of reference as long as you pay close
attention to what you do.

Furthermore, what is the slope of this hypotenuse for Stella? Unlike the speed Vr.

But what can we say for Bella, who will trace a curve since her movement
is accelerated?

What becomes of To for her?

It is the length of the line which links, at each moment, the origin O
and the point we find ourselves on the curve. That's it, To. Bad
weather.

And what happens to Vr at each moment? It is the inverse of the slope of
the tangent at the given point.

This may seem very strange.

But it is nevertheless mathematical.

The most complex thing to understand (it took me decades to find the
tilt) is that in the case
of the accelerated twin, the line which links the origin to the chosen
point of the curve IS To, and that this line is obviously NOT the curve
itself.

And that on the other hand the real instantaneous speed (Vr) is given by
the inverse of the slope of the tangent to the curve, speed which must
then be transcribed into Vo. Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

Everything then enters into a sumptuous logic and a great conceptual
beauty.

We then obtain the following two equations, which physicists
nevertheless deny, because they do not understand the beauty of reasoning,
and persist in posing totally false equations.

For the instantaneous speed of the accelerated mobile as a function of x
and a:
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)

For the improper time of the particle or the mobile:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) Validated by physicists that.

For the proper time Tr=sqrt(2x/a) quite simply.

There, a terrible incomprehension can shake the biggest minds in
physics, because they will ask:
Voi=Δx/ΔTo

However, as obvious as it may seem, it is completely false.

Something that would drive the greatest theoreticians crazy if they're
not careful.

Because Voi, it is given by the inverse of the SLOPE of the tangent to
the curve at the given point,
(and Voi transcribed from Vri), and not by the slope of the line which
joins the origin to this point, the only use of which is the length which corresponds for each point to To.

Breathe, breathe...

Grab three cups of coffee, edit this post, and think for an hour or two
about what I'm trying to explain to you in a few words.

R.H.

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

W dniu 24.04.2024 o 03:08, Richard Hachel pisze:

We set To²=Tr²+Et²

It’s great, life is above all very easy.

We take Stella, we calculate her proper time (Tr=4.776 years), her

But in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by idiots like you "improper"
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like
all the serious clocks always do, and
apart of some brainwashed morons nobody
cares about so called "proper time".

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

Le 24/04/2024 à 03:08, Richard Hachel a écrit :

We set To²=Tr²+Et²

It’s great, life is above all very easy.

We take Stella, we calculate her proper time (Tr=4.776 years), her improper time
(validated by Terrence, To=12.915 years), her constant speed Vo=0.929c, her distance traveled to Tau Ceti (12al).

We take Bella, in an accelerated reference frame at 1.052 ly/year², we calculate its proper time, its improper time, and the distance traveled.

In RRH (Hachel's special relativity), if we place the proper time in y, the distance traveled in x,
and the improper tense on the LENGTH of the hypotenuse, all this still works very well.

Even in accelerated frames of reference as long as you pay close attention to
what you do.

Furthermore, what is the slope of this hypotenuse for Stella? Unlike the speed
Vr.

But what can we say for Bella, who will trace a curve since her movement is accelerated?

What becomes of To for her?

It is the length of the line which links, at each moment, the origin O
and the point we find ourselves on the curve. That's it, To. Bad weather.

And what happens to Vr at each moment? It is the inverse of the slope of the
tangent at the given point.

This may seem very strange.

But it is nevertheless mathematical.

The most complex thing to understand (it took me decades to find the tilt) is
that in the case
of the accelerated twin, the line which links the origin to the chosen point of
the curve IS To, and that this line is obviously NOT the curve itself.

And that on the other hand the real instantaneous speed (Vr) is given by the
inverse of the slope of the tangent to the curve, speed which must then be transcribed into Vo. Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

Everything then enters into a sumptuous logic and a great conceptual beauty.

We then obtain the following two equations, which physicists nevertheless deny, because they do not understand the beauty of reasoning, and persist in posing totally false equations.

For the instantaneous speed of the accelerated mobile as a function of x and
a:
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)

For the improper time of the particle or the mobile:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) Validated by physicists that.

For the proper time Tr=sqrt(2x/a) quite simply.

There, a terrible incomprehension can shake the biggest minds in physics, because they will ask:
Voi=Δx/ΔTo

However, as obvious as it may seem, it is completely false.

Something that would drive the greatest theoreticians crazy if they're not careful.

Because Voi, it is given by the inverse of the SLOPE of the tangent to the curve at the given point,
(and Voi transcribed from Vri), and not by the slope of the line which joins
the origin to this point, the only use of which is the length which corresponds
for each point to To.

Breathe, breathe...

Grab three cups of coffee, edit this post, and think for an hour or two about
what I'm trying to explain to you in a few words.

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?FuPmdQiYeCyTJBoHqlKgiznV5BQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>


R.H.

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

Den 24.04.2024 03:08, skrev Richard Hachel:

We set To²=Tr²+Et²

It’s great, life is above all very easy.

We take Stella, we calculate her proper time (Tr=4.776 years), her
improper time (validated by Terrence, To=12.915 years), her constant
speed Vo=0.929c, her distance traveled to Tau Ceti (12al).

Why do you not define the scenario properly?

This is a twin scenario where twin A and B both are present at
two events.
Event #0 is that A and B are co-located at the Earth
Event #1 is that A and B are co-located at Tau Ceti

Given:
In the inertial frame where the Earth and Tau Ceti
are stationary, the distance between them is L = 12 ly.

Twin A is travelling at the constant speed v = 0.929 ly/y
At Event #0 twin B is stationary, and is accelerating at
the constant proper acceleration 1.052 ly/y².

The coordinates of event #0 are t₀ = 0, x₀ = 0
The coordinates of event #1 are t₁ = L/v = 12.9171 y, x₁ = L = 12 ly

We take Bella, in an accelerated reference frame at 1.052 ly/year², we calculate its proper time, its improper time, and the distance traveled.

"Improper time" is given, t₁ = 12.9171 y

According to SR:
Proper time of A: τ_A = L/γ⋅v = 4.7804 y
Proper time of B: τ_B = (c/a)⋅arsinh(a⋅t₁/c) = 3.1404 y

-----------------------

You like to dream up equations for relativistic speeds which
you believe can't be proven false in the real world.

You are wrong.

There are _lots_ of experiments with particles moving with
speed close to c, and even the proper times of particles
at relativistic speeds are measured (muons in storage ring).

All these experiments which are performed in the real world
confirms SR and falsifies RRH.

WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING YOUR FORMULAS WHICH YOU KNOW ARE PROVEN WRONG? ======================================================================

In RRH (Hachel's special relativity), if we place the proper time in y,
the distance traveled in x,
and the improper tense on the LENGTH of the hypotenuse, all this still
works very well.

 Even in accelerated frames of reference as long as you pay close
attention to what you do.

 Furthermore, what is the slope of this hypotenuse for Stella? Unlike
the speed Vr.

 But what can we say for Bella, who will trace a curve since her
movement is accelerated?

 What becomes of To for her?

It is the length of the line which links, at each moment, the origin O
 and the point we find ourselves on the curve. That's it, To. Bad weather.

 And what happens to Vr at each moment? It is the inverse of the slope
of the tangent at the given point.

 This may seem very strange.

 But it is nevertheless mathematical.

 The most complex thing to understand (it took me decades to find the
tilt) is that in the case
of the accelerated twin, the line which links the origin to the chosen
point of the curve IS To, and that this line is obviously NOT the curve itself.

 And that on the other hand the real instantaneous speed (Vr) is given
by the inverse of the slope of the tangent to the curve, speed which
must then be transcribed into Vo. Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

 Everything then enters into a sumptuous logic and a great conceptual beauty.

 We then obtain the following two equations, which physicists
nevertheless deny, because they do not understand the beauty of
reasoning, and persist in posing totally false equations.

 For the instantaneous speed of the accelerated mobile as a function of
x and a:
 Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)

 For the improper time of the particle or the mobile:
 To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) Validated by physicists that.

 For the proper time Tr=sqrt(2x/a) quite simply.

 There, a terrible incomprehension can shake the biggest minds in
physics, because they will ask:
Voi=Δx/ΔTo

 However, as obvious as it may seem, it is completely false.

 Something that would drive the greatest theoreticians crazy if they're
not careful.

 Because Voi, it is given by the inverse of the SLOPE of the tangent to
the curve at the given point,
 (and Voi transcribed from Vri), and not by the slope of the line which joins the origin to this point, the only use of which is the length
which corresponds for each point to To.

 Breathe, breathe...

 Grab three cups of coffee, edit this post, and think for an hour or
two about what I'm trying to explain to you in a few words.

 R.H.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Le 24/04/2024 à 22:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

According to SR:
Proper time of A: τ_A = L/γ⋅v = 4.7804 y
Proper time of B: τ_B = (c/a)⋅arsinh(a⋅t₁/c) = 3.1404 y

Yes, according to SR.

That's what I said.

According to SR.

Not, with me.

I'll take care of the problem for you.

Problem of the two travelers towards Tau Ceti (Docteur Hachel Copyrights).

Terrence remaining on earth will observe what will happen to his two
sisters who will go to Tau Ceti.

Thanks to new technological performances, extraordinary speeds can be
achieved almost instantly.

Stella and Bella leave simultaneously, and, with an ultra-powerful
telescope, Terrence observes that they cross Tau Ceti simultaneously.

However, Stella left in strict Galilean mode at Vo=0.92915c or To~12.915
years.

Bella left in uniformly accelerated mode at a=1.052ly/y²
(a~10m/s²).
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
To~12,915 years

Observed in Terrence's frame of reference, the two sisters have the same improper time.

We will now calculate their proper times.

Stella: Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) ~ 4.776 years

Bella: Tr=sqrt(2x/a)=4.776 y
and not (c/a)⋅arsinh(a⋅t₁/c) = 3.1404 y!!!

With again To²=Tr²+Et²
In addition, the instantaneous speed of Bella when she crosses Tau Ceti is Voi=0.980c or Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)

And no, Voi=0.995c...!!!

As for your remark that what I say contradicts experiences, that is
obviously false.

The opposite is true, and for the moment, it is me who explains with
clarity all the paradoxes and misunderstandings that still remain.

You tell me that in experiments, you have to know very precisely where the particles pass in order to modify the magnetic fields.

You are absolutely right.

But I remind you of an obvious fact: it is in the laboratory framework
that we do it, and, on that, I say nothing other than the same thing as
you.

It is about proper times and instantaneous observable velocities that we
no longer agree.

And I remind you what I explained to Python on fr.sci.physique today, as beautiful, attractive and logical as the equation Voi=(x2-x1)/(To2-To1)
is, this equation is false in relativity.

This is one of the most surprising ideas in the history of relativistic physics.

This means that if you know the position in time, your equation will get
the speed wrong.

And if you know the speed, your equation is going to get the position
wrong in time.

Check. You will find.

R.H.

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

W dniu 24.04.2024 o 22:51, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

You like to dream up equations for relativistic speeds which
you believe can't be proven false in the real world.

You are wrong.

There are _lots_ of experiments with particles moving with
speed close to c, and even the proper times of particles
at relativistic speeds are measured (muons in storage ring).

In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
by your insane church "improper" clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

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

Le 24/04/2024 à 22:51, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :

Den 24.04.2024 03:08, skrev Richard Hachel:

We set To²=Tr²+Et²

It’s great, life is above all very easy.

We take Stella, we calculate her proper time (Tr=4.776 years), her
improper time (validated by Terrence, To=12.915 years), her constant
speed Vo=0.929c, her distance traveled to Tau Ceti (12al).

Why do you not define the scenario properly?

It seems to be a typical cranks' habit, doesn't it?

This is a twin scenario where twin A and B both are present at
two events.
Event #0 is that A and B are co-located at the Earth
Event #1 is that A and B are co-located at Tau Ceti

Given:
In the inertial frame where the Earth and Tau Ceti
are stationary, the distance between them is L = 12 ly.

Twin A is travelling at the constant speed v = 0.929 ly/y
At Event #0 twin B is stationary, and is accelerating at
the constant proper acceleration 1.052 ly/y².

The coordinates of event #0 are t₀ = 0, x₀ = 0
The coordinates of event #1 are t₁ = L/v = 12.9171 y, x₁ = L = 12 ly

We take Bella, in an accelerated reference frame at 1.052 ly/year², we
calculate its proper time, its improper time, and the distance traveled.

"Improper time" is given, t₁ = 12.9171 y

According to SR:
Proper time of A:  τ_A = L/γ⋅v = 4.7804 y
Proper time of B:  τ_B = (c/a)⋅arsinh(a⋅t₁/c) = 3.1404 y

-----------------------

You like to dream up equations for relativistic speeds which
you believe can't be proven false in the real world.

You are wrong.

There are _lots_ of experiments with particles moving with
speed close to c, and even the proper times of particles
at relativistic speeds are measured (muons in storage ring).

All these experiments which are performed in the real world
confirms SR and falsifies RRH.

WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING YOUR FORMULAS WHICH YOU KNOW ARE PROVEN WRONG?

A mix of stupidity, stubbornness, arrogance and ignorance I would say.

His claim is highly suspicious to begin with because a property
depending on a choice of frame of reference (equal distances i.e.
equal spatial paths) cannot imply a frame-independent property
(equality of proper elapsed time). Except, of course, if this
property is always true (like in Galilean Relativity) but then
the condition of equal distances is pointless.

Hachel (aka M.D. Lengrand, go figure!) claims is not only refuted by experiments but can be proven contradictory and violating the principle
of Relativity (if you assume Galilean Relativity wrong, where elapsed
proper times for both travelers are equal by nature).

Just consider the cinematic of the accelerated traveler from the
point of view of the inertial frame of the other one.

Hachel/Lengrand agrees that if the inertial frame is Earth's one
in such an identical situation elapsed proper times will be
different. But not when the considered frame is the inertial
traveler's one!!! This is obviously contradictory and making
the inertial traveler's frame a absolute one (!!!).

When presented with such obvious logical facts, M.D. Lengrand is
whining like a pig and put his head in sands. As usual...

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 13:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 12:30, Python pisze:

Le 24/04/2024 à 22:51, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :

Den 24.04.2024 03:08, skrev Richard Hachel:

We set To²=Tr²+Et²

It’s great, life is above all very easy.

We take Stella, we calculate her proper time (Tr=4.776 years), her
improper time (validated by Terrence, To=12.915 years), her constant
speed Vo=0.929c, her distance traveled to Tau Ceti (12al).

Why do you not define the scenario properly?

It seems to be a typical cranks' habit, doesn't it?

This is a twin scenario where twin A and B both are present at
two events.
Event #0 is that A and B are co-located at the Earth
Event #1 is that A and B are co-located at Tau Ceti

Given:
In the inertial frame where the Earth and Tau Ceti
are stationary, the distance between them is L = 12 ly.

Twin A is travelling at the constant speed v = 0.929 ly/y
At Event #0 twin B is stationary, and is accelerating at
the constant proper acceleration 1.052 ly/y².

The coordinates of event #0 are t₀ = 0, x₀ = 0
The coordinates of event #1 are t₁ = L/v = 12.9171 y, x₁ = L = 12 ly >>>>

We take Bella, in an accelerated reference frame at 1.052 ly/year²,
we calculate its proper time, its improper time, and the distance
traveled.

"Improper time" is given, t₁ = 12.9171 y

According to SR:
Proper time of A:  τ_A = L/γ⋅v = 4.7804 y
Proper time of B:  τ_B = (c/a)⋅arsinh(a⋅t₁/c) = 3.1404 y

-----------------------

You like to dream up equations for relativistic speeds which
you believe can't be proven false in the real world.

You are wrong.

There are _lots_ of experiments with particles moving with
speed close to c, and even the proper times of particles
at relativistic speeds are measured (muons in storage ring).

All these experiments which are performed in the real world
confirms SR and falsifies RRH.

WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING YOUR FORMULAS WHICH YOU KNOW ARE PROVEN WRONG?

A mix of stupidity, stubbornness, arrogance and ignorance I would say.

Oh, [snip whining]

You too are a kind of this mix, event more demented Wozmaniak. Don't
be jealous.

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 12:30, Python pisze:

Le 24/04/2024 à 22:51, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :

Den 24.04.2024 03:08, skrev Richard Hachel:

We set To²=Tr²+Et²

It’s great, life is above all very easy.

We take Stella, we calculate her proper time (Tr=4.776 years), her
improper time (validated by Terrence, To=12.915 years), her constant
speed Vo=0.929c, her distance traveled to Tau Ceti (12al).

Why do you not define the scenario properly?

It seems to be a typical cranks' habit, doesn't it?

This is a twin scenario where twin A and B both are present at
two events.
Event #0 is that A and B are co-located at the Earth
Event #1 is that A and B are co-located at Tau Ceti

Given:
In the inertial frame where the Earth and Tau Ceti
are stationary, the distance between them is L = 12 ly.

Twin A is travelling at the constant speed v = 0.929 ly/y
At Event #0 twin B is stationary, and is accelerating at
the constant proper acceleration 1.052 ly/y².

The coordinates of event #0 are t₀ = 0, x₀ = 0
The coordinates of event #1 are t₁ = L/v = 12.9171 y, x₁ = L = 12 ly

We take Bella, in an accelerated reference frame at 1.052 ly/year²,
we calculate its proper time, its improper time, and the distance
traveled.

"Improper time" is given, t₁ = 12.9171 y

According to SR:
Proper time of A:  τ_A = L/γ⋅v = 4.7804 y
Proper time of B:  τ_B = (c/a)⋅arsinh(a⋅t₁/c) = 3.1404 y

-----------------------

You like to dream up equations for relativistic speeds which
you believe can't be proven false in the real world.

You are wrong.

There are _lots_ of experiments with particles moving with
speed close to c, and even the proper times of particles
at relativistic speeds are measured (muons in storage ring).

All these experiments which are performed in the real world
confirms SR and falsifies RRH.

WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING YOUR FORMULAS WHICH YOU KNOW ARE PROVEN WRONG?

A mix of stupidity, stubbornness, arrogance and ignorance I would say.

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? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 12:30, Python a écrit :

Just consider the cinematic of the accelerated traveler from the
point of view of the inertial frame of the other one.

:))

This is what we must do, indeed.

The problem is that you don't know how to do it, and you're not ready to
know how to do it.

You didn't understand anything about the theory of reality, and you only learned equations by heart.

Equations which, although supported by physicists, are partly false.

You're just a puppet, a buffoon...

R.H.

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 13:25, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 13:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 12:30, Python pisze:

Le 24/04/2024 à 22:51, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :

Den 24.04.2024 03:08, skrev Richard Hachel:

We set To²=Tr²+Et²

It’s great, life is above all very easy.

We take Stella, we calculate her proper time (Tr=4.776 years), her
improper time (validated by Terrence, To=12.915 years), her
constant speed Vo=0.929c, her distance traveled to Tau Ceti (12al).

Why do you not define the scenario properly?

It seems to be a typical cranks' habit, doesn't it?

This is a twin scenario where twin A and B both are present at
two events.
Event #0 is that A and B are co-located at the Earth
Event #1 is that A and B are co-located at Tau Ceti

Given:
In the inertial frame where the Earth and Tau Ceti
are stationary, the distance between them is L = 12 ly.

Twin A is travelling at the constant speed v = 0.929 ly/y
At Event #0 twin B is stationary, and is accelerating at
the constant proper acceleration 1.052 ly/y².

The coordinates of event #0 are t₀ = 0, x₀ = 0
The coordinates of event #1 are t₁ = L/v = 12.9171 y, x₁ = L = 12 ly >>>>>

We take Bella, in an accelerated reference frame at 1.052 ly/year², >>>>> we calculate its proper time, its improper time, and the distance
traveled.

"Improper time" is given, t₁ = 12.9171 y

According to SR:
Proper time of A:  τ_A = L/γ⋅v = 4.7804 y
Proper time of B:  τ_B = (c/a)⋅arsinh(a⋅t₁/c) = 3.1404 y

-----------------------

You like to dream up equations for relativistic speeds which
you believe can't be proven false in the real world.

You are wrong.

There are _lots_ of experiments with particles moving with
speed close to c, and even the proper times of particles
at relativistic speeds are measured (muons in storage ring).

All these experiments which are performed in the real world
confirms SR and falsifies RRH.

WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING YOUR FORMULAS WHICH YOU KNOW ARE PROVEN WRONG?

A mix of stupidity, stubbornness, arrogance and ignorance I would say.

Oh, [snip whining]

You too are a kind of this mix, event more demented Wozmaniak. Don't
be jealous.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, and you
can do nothing about it apart of raving
and spitting.
But, of course, you do what uou can.




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

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, and you
can do nothing about it apart of raving
and spitting.
But, of course, you do what uou can.

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 14:31, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 25/04/2024 à 12:30, Python a écrit :

Just consider the cinematic of the accelerated traveler from the
point of view of the inertial frame of the other one.

:))

This is what we must do, indeed.

So why don't you do it and recognize the obvious : your claim is
wrong ?

The problem is that you don't know how to do it, and you're not ready to
know how to do it.

I did and went to the obvious conclusion that you contradict yourself
and the principle of Relativity.

You didn't understand anything about the theory of reality, and you only learned equations by heart.

This can reassure you when you notice that people refutes your claims
with details : it's a plot ! Unfortunately it is not at all how science teaching and learning words.

Ironically you are the one insisting for "students" to learn by rote
your silly equations full of undefined terms, lacking any kind of
demonstration (you pull up out of your "hat"), often absurd and
refuted by real experiments.

You'd love to have this kind of authoritarian power : force people
to learn your fantasies "by heart".

Fortunately nobody give a shit to the unfounded opinion of a
megalomaniac M.D. who pretend to have a clue, when he doesn't.

Equations which, although supported by physicists, are partly false.

You're just a puppet, a buffoon...

There is no doubt about who's a buffoon here : M.D. Lengrand aka Hachel.

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

No surprise, of course, that you don't know
what inconsistency is, after your shows about
roots, functions and other subjects.

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.
No surprise, of course, that you don't know
what inconsistency is, after your shows about
roots, functions and other subjects.
You couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
when it kicked you in the face.

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

No surprise, of course, that you don't know
what inconsistency is, after your shows about
roots, functions and other subjects.

No surprise that you've ignored the refutations of
your silly claims back then, same for roots or functions,
all stuff you have fancy ideas about...

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:51, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...

what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:56, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:51, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...

what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?

Doesn't matter. The mumble of your idiot
guru was not even consistent and it has been
proven. Your raving and spitting is changing
nothing, poor trash. Sorry.
BTW, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:56, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:51, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...

what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?

Doesn't matter.

Right! The rants of a demented senile polish does not
matter.

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:13, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:56, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:51, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...

what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?

Doesn't matter.

Right! The rants of a demented senile polish does not
matter.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, and you
can do nothing about it apart of raving
and spitting.
But, of course, you do what uou can.

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:13, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:56, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:51, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh
in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...

what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?

Doesn't matter.

Right! The rants of a demented senile polish does not
matter.

See, trash - I've proven [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Of course you've not, you are a kook.

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:26, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:13, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:56, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:51, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...] >>>>>>>>>>>> [...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency
if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh >>>>>>>>>>> in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...

what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?

Doesn't matter.

Right! The rants of a demented senile polish does not
matter.

See, trash - I've proven [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Of course you've not, you are a kook.

Of course I have, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
other.
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of your idiot guru
was referring were not related to Earth, but
to its imagined by you virtual copy - are, well,
ridiculous, even considering the usual level of
The Shit's worshippers.
They're even ridiculous considering your usual
level.





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

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:26, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:13, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:56, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:51, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency >>>>>>>>>>>> if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh >>>>>>>>>>>> in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-)

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...

what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?

Doesn't matter.

Right! The rants of a demented senile polish does not
matter.

See, trash - I've proven [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Of course you've not, you are a kook.

Of course I have, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
other.
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of your idiot guru
was referring were not related to Earth, but
to its imagined by you virtual copy - are, well,
ridiculous, even considering the usual level of
The Shit's worshippers.
They're even ridiculous considering your usual
level.

I didn't expect you to understand my argument :-)

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:39, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:26, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:13, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:56, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:51, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency >>>>>>>>>>>>> if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh >>>>>>>>>>>>> in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-) >>>>>>>>>>>

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...

what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?

Doesn't matter.

Right! The rants of a demented senile polish does not
matter.

See, trash - I've proven [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Of course you've not, you are a kook.

Of course I have, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
other.
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of your idiot guru
was referring were not related to Earth, but
to its imagined by you virtual copy - are, well,
ridiculous, even considering the usual level of
The Shit's worshippers.
They're even ridiculous considering your usual
level.

I didn't expect you to understand my argument :-)

Neither I expected you to understand how incredibly
idiotic it was.





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

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of [Einstein]
was referring were not related to Earth

There absolutely NO reference to any unit of time
in Einstein's article.

I was addressing *your* concern about unit of
time.

It should be terrible to be you, Wozmaniak: you
are a idiot at a fractal scale. Even your confusions
are made of sub-confusions.

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:41, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:39, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:26, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:13, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:56, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:51, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 17:41, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 16:46, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 16:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...

See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] to be inconsistent

Wozmaniak, you couldn't even recognize an inconsistency >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it kicked you in the face.

Your tale about the definition of a second is a big laugh >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all physics dept where it has been mentioned.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be inconsistent, [snip rant]

Come on, Wozmaniak, you've done nothing of that kind :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means - I've shown its inconsistency.

Come on Wozmaniak ! You've done nothing of that kind.

Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...

what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?

Doesn't matter.

Right! The rants of a demented senile polish does not
matter.

See, trash - I've proven [...]
[...] to be inconsistent

Of course you've not, you are a kook.

Of course I have, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
other.
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of your idiot guru
was referring were not related to Earth, but
to its imagined by you virtual copy - are, well,
ridiculous, even considering the usual level of
The Shit's worshippers.
They're even ridiculous considering your usual
level.

I didn't expect you to understand my argument :-)

Neither I expected you to understand how incredibly
idiotic it was.

Have you convinced any of the demented fools who resides in your
aisle in the asylum where you're living in Poland, Wozmaniak?

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:44, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of [Einstein]
was referring were not related to Earth

There absolutely NO reference to any unit of time
in Einstein's article.

Will you say the same about the physics he
practiced together with his idiot minions,
poor trash?

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 20:07, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:44, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of [Einstein]
was referring were not related to Earth

There absolutely NO reference to any unit of time
in Einstein's article.

Will you say the same about the physics he
practiced together with his idiot minions,
poor trash?

Read (again ?) JJ Lodder's answer to your rant, it's
quite insightful.

No, it's an usual rant of another fanatic idiot.
And you haven't answerred the question, poor
trash.
Of course.

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 20:07, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:44, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of [Einstein]
was referring were not related to Earth

There absolutely NO reference to any unit of time
in Einstein's article.

Will you say the same about the physics he
practiced together with his idiot minions,
poor trash?

Read (again ?) JJ Lodder's answer to your rant, it's
quite insightful.

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

Den 25.04.2024 02:08, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 24/04/2024 à 22:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

According to SR:
Proper time of A:  τ_A = L/γ⋅v = 4.7804 y
Proper time of B:  τ_B = (c/a)⋅arsinh(a⋅t₁/c) = 3.1404 y

Yes, according to SR.

That's what I said.

According to SR.
Not, with me.

No, not with you, because you dream up equations for relativistic
speeds which you believe can't be proven false in the real world.

You are wrong.

There are _lots_ of experiments with particles moving with
speed close to c, and even the proper times of particles
at relativistic speeds are measured (muons in a storage ring).

All these experiments confirm SR and falsifies RRH.

The experimental evidence won't go away even if you ignore it!

WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING NONSENSE YOU MUST KNOW IS PROVEN WRONG? ===============================================================

<snip nonsense>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 20:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 20:07, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:44, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of [Einstein]
was referring were not related to Earth

There absolutely NO reference to any unit of time
in Einstein's article.

Will you say the same about the physics he
practiced together with his idiot minions,
poor trash?

Read (again ?) JJ Lodder's answer to your rant, it's
quite insightful.

No, it's an usual rant of another fanatic idiot.
And you haven't answerred the question,  poor
trash.
Of course.

You'll die as stupid, ignorant and clueless as you've
always been then...

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 20:58, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

Den 25.04.2024 02:08, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 24/04/2024 à 22:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

According to SR:
Proper time of A:  τ_A = L/γ⋅v = 4.7804 y
Proper time of B:  τ_B = (c/a)⋅arsinh(a⋅t₁/c) = 3.1404 y

Yes, according to SR.

That's what I said.

According to SR.
Not, with me.

No, not with you, because you dream up equations for relativistic
speeds which you believe can't be proven false in the real world.

You are wrong.

There are _lots_ of experiments with particles moving with
speed close to c, and even the proper times of particles
at relativistic speeds are measured (muons in a storage ring).

All these experiments confirm SR and falsifies RRH.

Of course, in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by your insane church "improper" clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
And, generally, the mumble of your idiot guru was
not even consistent, what has been proven.

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

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 20:31, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 20:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 20:07, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:44, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of [Einstein]
was referring were not related to Earth

There absolutely NO reference to any unit of time
in Einstein's article.

Will you say the same about the physics he
practiced together with his idiot minions,
poor trash?

Read (again ?) JJ Lodder's answer to your rant, it's
quite insightful.

No, it's an usual rant of another fanatic idiot.
And you haven't answerred the question,  poor
trash.
Of course.

You'll die as stupid, ignorant and clueless as you've
always been then...

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be not even consistent, and
you can do nothing about it apart of raving
and spitting.
But, of course, you do what uou can.

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

Le 25/04/2024 à 21:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 20:31, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 20:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 20:07, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.04.2024 o 19:44, Python pisze:

Le 25/04/2024 à 19:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of [Einstein]
was referring were not related to Earth

There absolutely NO reference to any unit of time
in Einstein's article.

Will you say the same about the physics he
practiced together with his idiot minions,
poor trash?

Read (again ?) JJ Lodder's answer to your rant, it's
quite insightful.

No, it's an usual rant of another fanatic idiot.
And you haven't answerred the question,  poor
trash.
Of course.

You'll die as stupid, ignorant and clueless as you've
always been then...

See :

Yep : Wozmaniak stupid, ignorant and clueless.

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