Have a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M
Le 07/05/2024 à 07:07, patdolan@comcast.net (patdolan) a écrit :
Have a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M
Probablement des tas de conneries dans tout ça.
Certains physiciens racontent aujourd'hui la physique comme les moines du moyen-âge devaient raconter l'ascension du petit Jésus.
C'est dramatique.
R.H.
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 07/05/2024 à 07:07, patdolan@comcast.net (patdolan) a écrit :
Have a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M
What's your problem, bub?
Probablement des tas de conneries dans tout ça.
Peut-etre.
Certains physiciens racontent aujourd'hui la physique comme les moines
du moyen-âge devaient raconter l'ascension du petit Jésus.
C'est dramatique.
R.H.
Karl Gauss wrote, “I am coming more and more to the conviction that the necessity of our geometry cannot be demonstrated...geometry should be
ranked,
not with arithmetic, which is purely aprioristic, but with mechanics.”
I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, and so I'm uncomfortable with trying to reduce EVERYTHING to geometry. At least, Gauss put mechanics on an equal footing. I would say that his "mechanics" is dynamics. GR seems to subsume
dynamics into geometry.
Another thing about the video bothers me. The experience of the
traveler is
described in detail, but no mention is made of what happens to the distant observer, namely, all us guys. Consider the GPS. Time flows more
slowly for
us sitting on the earth relative to a point far away from us. Unlike SR where each twin sees the other's time slowed down, an observer in a gravity well sees the time of one who is far away flowing faster while the one far away sees us in the well flowing slower. This, in a sense, is an absolute difference, not relative like the SR case.
So a guy falling into a black hole sees time in the universe he's leaving going faster and faster until at the event horizon, all time in the
universe
has passed. So even if he could come back, there would be nothing to come back to.
Karl Gauss wrote, “I am coming more and more to the conviction that the necessity of our geometry cannot be demonstrated...geometry should be ranked, not with arithmetic, which is purely aprioristic, but with mechanics.”
I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, and so I'm uncomfortable with trying to reduce EVERYTHING to geometry. At least, Gauss put mechanics on an equal footing. I would say that his "mechanics" is dynamics. GR seems to subsume dynamics into geometry.
Another thing about the video bothers me. The experience of the traveler is described in detail, but no mention is made of what happens to the distant observer, namely, all us guys. Consider the GPS. Time flows more slowly for us sitting on the earth relative to a point far away from us. Unlike SR where each twin sees the other's time slowed down, an observer in a gravity well sees the time of one who is far away flowing faster while the one far away sees us in the well flowing slower. This, in a sense, is an absolute difference, not relative like the SR case.
So a guy falling into a black hole sees time in the universe he's leaving going faster and faster until at the event horizon, all time in the universe has passed. So even if he could come back, there would be nothing to come back to.
W dniu 07.05.2024 o 22:50, Richard Hachel pisze:
We come back a little to Langevin's traveler,
or other problems of special relativity
that I have been asking for some forty years.
That is to say that communications would be impossible and that we could
never get around the problem of causality.
Thus, an observer could instantly visit one hundred thousand stars,
without this posing any problems in terms of time (negligible proper time). >>
But when he came back to tell us everything he saw in the future of the
universe, the earth would already have this same information, since it
itself would have aged a hundred thousand years.
Space travel is therefore definitively solved with Dr. Hachel's
equations. We will be able to reach any star or galaxy instantly or
almost, why not. But in Earth's frame of reference it will still take
thousands or billions of years?
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by idiots like you "improper and inaccurate" clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Le 07/05/2024 à 20:03, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Karl Gauss wrote, “I am coming more and more to the conviction that the
necessity of our geometry cannot be demonstrated...geometry should be
ranked,
not with arithmetic, which is purely aprioristic, but with mechanics.”
I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, and so I'm uncomfortable with
trying to
reduce EVERYTHING to geometry. At least, Gauss put mechanics on an equal >> footing. I would say that his "mechanics" is dynamics. GR seems to
subsume
dynamics into geometry.
Another thing about the video bothers me. The experience of the
traveler is
described in detail, but no mention is made of what happens to the
distant
observer, namely, all us guys. Consider the GPS. Time flows more
slowly for
us sitting on the earth relative to a point far away from us. Unlike SR
where each twin sees the other's time slowed down, an observer in a
gravity
well sees the time of one who is far away flowing faster while the one
far
away sees us in the well flowing slower. This, in a sense, is an
absolute
difference, not relative like the SR case.
So a guy falling into a black hole sees time in the universe he's leaving
going faster and faster until at the event horizon, all time in the
universe
has passed. So even if he could come back, there would be nothing to come
back to.
We come back a little to Langevin's traveler,
or other problems of special relativity
that I have been asking for some forty years.
That is to say that communications would be impossible and that we could never get around the problem of causality.
Thus, an observer could instantly visit one hundred thousand stars,
without this posing any problems in terms of time (negligible proper time).
But when he came back to tell us everything he saw in the future of the universe, the earth would already have this same information, since it
itself would have aged a hundred thousand years.
Space travel is therefore definitively solved with Dr. Hachel's
equations. We will be able to reach any star or galaxy instantly or
almost, why not. But in Earth's frame of reference it will still take thousands or billions of years?
Le 07/05/2024 à 23:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.05.2024 o 22:50, Richard Hachel pisze:
We come back a little to Langevin's traveler,
or other problems of special relativity
that I have been asking for some forty years.
That is to say that communications would be impossible and that we
could never get around the problem of causality.
Thus, an observer could instantly visit one hundred thousand stars,
without this posing any problems in terms of time (negligible proper
time).
But when he came back to tell us everything he saw in the future of
the universe, the earth would already have this same information,
since it itself would have aged a hundred thousand years.
Space travel is therefore definitively solved with Dr. Hachel's
equations. We will be able to reach any star or galaxy instantly or
almost, why not. But in Earth's frame of reference it will still take
thousands or billions of years?
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by idiots like you "improper and inaccurate" clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Is it true that you are Polish?
Which region of Poland are you from?
What are your skills in theoretical physics?
Le 07/05/2024 23:30, Maciej Wozniak a crit :
W dniu 07.05.2024 o22:50, Richard Hachel pisze:
We come back a little to Langevin's traveler,
or other problems of special relativity
that I have been asking for some forty years.
That is to say that communications would be impossible and that we
could never get around the problem of causality.
Thus, an observer could instantly visit one hundred thousand stars,
without this posing any problems in terms of time (negligible proper
time).
But when he came back to tell us everything he saw in the future of the
universe, the earth would already have this same information, since it
itself would have aged a hundred thousand years.
Space travel is therefore definitively solved with Dr. Hachel's
equations. We will be able to reach any star or galaxy instantly or
almost, why not. But in Earth's frame of reference it will still take
thousands or billions of years?
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by idiots like you "improper and inaccurate" clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Is it true that you are Polish?
Which region of Poland are you from?
What are your skills in theoretical physics?
W dniu 07.05.2024 o 23:38, Richard Hachel pisze:
Le 07/05/2024 à 23:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.05.2024 o 22:50, Richard Hachel pisze:
We come back a little to Langevin's traveler,
or other problems of special relativity
that I have been asking for some forty years.
That is to say that communications would be impossible and that we
could never get around the problem of causality.
Thus, an observer could instantly visit one hundred thousand stars,
without this posing any problems in terms of time (negligible proper
time).
But when he came back to tell us everything he saw in the future of
the universe, the earth would already have this same information,
since it itself would have aged a hundred thousand years.
Space travel is therefore definitively solved with Dr. Hachel's
equations. We will be able to reach any star or galaxy instantly or
almost, why not. But in Earth's frame of reference it will still take
thousands or billions of years?
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by idiots like you "improper and inaccurate" clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Is it true that you are Polish?
Yes.
Which region of Poland are you from?
Gdansk.
What are your skills in theoretical physics?
I have no skills in mad mystical mumbling
about some delusional Laws of some delusional
Higher Force.
But I have some skills in dealing with
informational devices, like clocks or
observers.
Le 08/05/2024 à 07:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.05.2024 o 23:38, Richard Hachel pisze:
Le 07/05/2024 à 23:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.05.2024 o 22:50, Richard Hachel pisze:
We come back a little to Langevin's traveler,
or other problems of special relativity
that I have been asking for some forty years.
That is to say that communications would be impossible and that we
could never get around the problem of causality.
Thus, an observer could instantly visit one hundred thousand stars,
without this posing any problems in terms of time (negligible
proper time).
But when he came back to tell us everything he saw in the future of
the universe, the earth would already have this same information,
since it itself would have aged a hundred thousand years.
Space travel is therefore definitively solved with Dr. Hachel's
equations. We will be able to reach any star or galaxy instantly or
almost, why not. But in Earth's frame of reference it will still
take thousands or billions of years?
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by idiots like you "improper and inaccurate" clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Is it true that you are Polish?
Yes.
Which region of Poland are you from?
Gdansk.
What are your skills in theoretical physics?
I have no skills in mad mystical mumbling
about some delusional Laws of some delusional
Higher Force.
But I have some skills in dealing with
informational devices, like clocks or
observers.
It doesn't take much scientific knowledge to realize that physicists'
brains are not mentally healthy.
It doesn't take much scientific knowledge to realize that physicists'
brains are not mentally healthy.
Saying that we are going to enter a black hole in the shape of spaghetti
and that we are going to come out of the other through a white fountain
into another universe, that's still being a little sick.
The solution to all this, or the unveiling of the problem, is almost religious. We must return to the ancient wisdom which we so lack today,
with wokism, crazy capitalism, Islamism, and all these antics which should have gone, in normal societies, into the dustbin of history.
"But you guys are seriously ill, if you weren't seriously ill, I would
have told you. But there you are, you are seriously ill, and you really
need a good doctor."
So yes, indeed physicists, like all other men (especially religious
people) are "a little sick".
But what follows is poignant and distressing, and it should make any
serious man cry. "But you say: we are not sick, we feel very well. In this you are wrong, and you make all useful preaching vain."
Now, having said that, you shouldn't throw the baby out with the
bathwater.
We should not reject everything in science, obviously.
When you look at the Concorde or the Tupolev, when you look at
a 4K screen,
when you study the accelerated particles,
you say to yourself: “They still worked well”. There are obviously quite a few
truths in their science.
Unfortunately, Dr. Hachel has no scientific knowledge.
For example, he proposed E = mc^2/(1 + v^2/c^2)
Le 08/05/2024 à 21:41, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Unfortunately, Dr. Hachel has no scientific knowledge.
You lies.
For example, he proposed E = mc^2/[sqrt](1 + v^2/c^2)
You lies.
I would like to discuss with you, but I would like frank discussions, discussions where we lie.
Even Python, who doesn't like me at all (to say the least, lies less than you).
....
Hence the question: why are you lying?
R.H.
Unfortunately, Dr. Hachel has no scientific knowledge.
You lies.
Sorry, I inadvertantly left off the square root factor. But
the good doctor is forgetting that he claimed gamma should be
1/sqrt(1 + v^2/c^2), n'est-ce pas?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 01:18:45 |
Calls: | 7,760 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,897 |
Messages: | 5,744,976 |