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
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.
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.
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).
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?
W dniu 25.04.2024 o 12:30, Python pisze:You too are a kind of this mix, event more demented Wozmaniak. Don't
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]
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.
Just consider the cinematic of the accelerated traveler from the
point of view of the inertial frame of the other one.
Le 25/04/2024 à 13:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.04.2024 o 12:30, Python pisze:You too are a kind of this mix, event more demented Wozmaniak. Don't
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]
be jealous.
See, [snip profanity] - I've proven the mumble of [...]
[...] to be inconsistent
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.
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...
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 :-)
Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
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.
W dniu 25.04.2024 o 18:16, Python pisze:
Le 25/04/2024 à 18:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...
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 :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...
what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?
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 :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
predictions of his absurd physics denying each
othewr; that means ...
what "othewr" means? Who give a sh*t?
Doesn't matter.
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 :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
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.
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 :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
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
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 :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
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.
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 :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
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.
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 :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
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 :-)
...
Your ridiculous efforts of persuading that the
unit of time the physics of [Einstein]
was referring were not related to Earth
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 :Oh, yes, poor trash. Have shown directly 2
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
<snip nonsense>
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.
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.
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...
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 :
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 315 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 04:11:55 |
Calls: | 7,001 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,427 |
Messages: | 5,460,210 |
Posted today: | 1 |