The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
If you believe in spacetime
then you have to believe that
time and space
goes slow
or fast
as
spacetime particles.
spacetime particles
goes slow or fast.
One particle of spacetime
can move slow or fast.
Or a wave of
spacetime particles
can move in spacetime.
When time goes slow
the particle goes slow.
It's dat simple.
I'm aware that for all of yous spacetime is beyond your understanding and not found in textbooks...(as i describe it)
maybe I need to come down to your levels..
(yous have differculties with the machinery running the whole universe) >>>
Let me break it down simply to your levels...
'spacetime particles'
A particle of spacetime is simply
a negative particle of space and
a positive particle of time
and you put both together..
you have a complete
positive and negative particle.
Like a battery.
Look at a battery
and you'll see a positive
on one side and a negative
on the other side.
+ and a -
A spacetime particle consists
of a + and a -.
Space is negative energy
Time, is positive.
Spacetime consist of particles.
I don't know any other way to help you understand it.
That also means Time is...positive energy.
In other words, a spacetime particle contains...mass.
Spacetime is simply what exists, if you split absolutely nothing in a:
positive space with positive time and positive mass
and a
negative space space with negative time and negative mass.
The inhabitants of the anti-world of negative time actually believe, the
Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]
W dniu 30.05.2024 o 07:48, Thomas Heger pisze:
Spacetime is simply what exists, if you split absolutely nothing in a:
positive space with positive time and positive mass
and a
negative space space with negative time and negative mass.
The inhabitants of the anti-world of negative time actually believe, the
The inhabitants of fiction actually always believe what
the author of the fiction wants them to.
On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you
write.
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in the
real world.
On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you
write.
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in the
real world.
Tom Roberts
On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you
write.
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in the
real world.
On 06/01/2024 10:48 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.05.2024 o 06:25, Tom Roberts pisze:
On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a
fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you
write.
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in the
real world.
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a
fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you
write.
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships
gedanken/fabricated by some religious maniacs, like yourself.
Space-Time is a perfectly good idea of a
Euclidean space
Tom Roberts wrote:
On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a
fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you
write.
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in the
real world.
Tom Roberts
I tend to think of physics that way, too, but I was watching this
episode
of How the Universe Works called "The Mystery of Space Time" and had a
few
issues with it:
"Space-time is the fabric of our reality"
"The universe is made of space-time"
"Whatever the substance is, time and space bound together, that's
expanding
and creating the universe we see around us. It's everything. Space-time
is what the universe really is."
Am Samstag000001, 01.06.2024 um 15:35 schrieb gharnagel:
Tom Roberts wrote:
On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a
fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you
write.
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in the
real world.
Tom Roberts
I tend to think of physics that way, too, but I was watching this
episode
of How the Universe Works called "The Mystery of Space Time" and had a
few
issues with it:
"Space-time is the fabric of our reality"
"The universe is made of space-time"
"Whatever the substance is, time and space bound together, that's
expanding
and creating the universe we see around us. It's everything. Space-time
is what the universe really is."
Well, sounds good!
On 06/01/2024 01:37 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 01.06.2024 o 21:53, Ross Finlayson pisze:
On 06/01/2024 10:48 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.05.2024 o 06:25, Tom Roberts pisze:
On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a >>>>> fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you >>>>> write.
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in the >>>>> real world.
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a
fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you >>>> write.
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships
gedanken/fabricated by some religious maniacs, like yourself.
Space-Time is a perfectly good idea of a
Measured its goodness? Or just sure it
must be perfectly good because you're
sooooooo best?
continuous manifold of
Euclidean space
A lie, of course, your idiot guru has rejected
Euclidean math as it didn't want to fit his
madness.
Einstein didn't, he entertained different coordinate settings
and that tensors connect them, then though he at some point
in his expressed opinion said silly things about simultaneity,
later his expressed opinion included a clock hypothesis and
a "the time", where he introduces the "spacial" for the "special"
contra the "spatial" with respect to "t".
Am Samstag000001, 01.06.2024 um 15:35 schrieb gharnagel:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in
the real world.
Tom Roberts
I tend to think of physics that way, too, but I was watching this
episode of How the Universe Works called "The Mystery of Space Time"
and had a few issues with it:
"Space-time is the fabric of our reality"
"The universe is made of space-time"
"Whatever the substance is, time and space bound together, that'sSpace-time
expanding
and creating the universe we see around us. It's everything.
is what the universe really is."
Well, sounds good!
I had written kind of 'book' about this idea and called it 'structured spacetime'.
This can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
The idea behind it is quite simpel:
if GR and QM are somehow valid, there must be a way to bring both
systems into a consistent relation.
My own approach was: start at the GR side and with some sort of real
existing spacetime.
The observed world is then the local 'subchapter', which is seen from
where we (or any other observer) are placed.
This world has to have fewer dimensions than spacetime.
Spacetime must also be coordinates free and having no beginning and no
end.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000001, 01.06.2024 um 15:35 schrieb gharnagel:
Space-time
Tom Roberts wrote:
episode of How the Universe Works called "The Mystery of Space Time"
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in
the real world.
Tom Roberts
I tend to think of physics that way, too, but I was watching this
and had a few issues with it:
"Space-time is the fabric of our reality"expanding
"The universe is made of space-time"
"Whatever the substance is, time and space bound together, that's
and creating the universe we see around us. It's everything.
is what the universe really is."
Well, sounds good!
Since we don't really understand what "space-time" is,
W dniu 02.06.2024 o 14:48, gharnagel pisze:
Since we don't really understand what "space-time" is,
Since you don't, you really should shut up,
Harrie.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 02.06.2024 o 14:48, gharnagel pisze:
Since we don't really understand what "space-time" is,
Since you don't, you really should shut up,
Harrie.
Pot, kettle, black, Wozzie-fool. You don't seem to understand
Most people know that dead-reckoning isn't really a thing,
then there's wide reliance on the constancy of light-speed,
and its effectively large value.
On 06/02/2024 09:57 AM, gharnagel wrote:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 02.06.2024 o 14:48, gharnagel pisze:
Since we don't really understand what "space-time" is,
Since you don't, you really should shut up,
Harrie.
Pot, kettle, black, Wozzie-fool. You don't seem to understand
anything, so your fickle finger points right back at you :-))
I'd only heard of that after there was re-syndicated "Laugh-In"
on the free OTA television I used to watch.
I was like "this is amusing, yet what a bunch of flakes".
Horn-dogs and flakes, ....
I quit watching television about a year ago yet have
already watched most what's considered "syndicated" television,
or the '70's and '80's and some of the '60's as it were.
There is an idea that Maciej basically _is_ a tea-kettle,
and all he has to look at all day is the Parameterized-Post-Newtonian,
then also a translation chart to Naive-Einstein-SR's-Wrong-GR,
and he always has to re-compute to reflect what he thinks people
either way need the numbers both ways, and erupts "mumble".
Of course the "Parameterized Post-Newtonian" _is_ the ephemeris
in effect, with regards to Earthly things the things near Earth.
Most people know that dead-reckoning isn't really a thing,
then there's wide reliance on the constancy of light-speed,
and its effectively large value.
So, in a sense it's like "two wrongs".
On 06/02/2024 11:17 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 02.06.2024 o 19:13, Ross Finlayson pisze:
On 06/02/2024 09:57 AM, gharnagel wrote:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 02.06.2024 o 14:48, gharnagel pisze:
Since we don't really understand what "space-time" is,
Since you don't, you really should shut up,
Harrie.
Pot, kettle, black, Wozzie-fool. You don't seem to understand
anything, so your fickle finger points right back at you :-))
I'd only heard of that after there was re-syndicated "Laugh-In"
on the free OTA television I used to watch.
I was like "this is amusing, yet what a bunch of flakes".
Horn-dogs and flakes, ....
I quit watching television about a year ago yet have
already watched most what's considered "syndicated" television,
or the '70's and '80's and some of the '60's as it were.
There is an idea that Maciej basically _is_ a tea-kettle,
and all he has to look at all day is the Parameterized-Post-Newtonian,
then also a translation chart to Naive-Einstein-SR's-Wrong-GR,
and he always has to re-compute to reflect what he thinks people
either way need the numbers both ways, and erupts "mumble".
Of course the "Parameterized Post-Newtonian" _is_ the ephemeris
in effect, with regards to Earthly things the things near Earth.
Most people know that dead-reckoning isn't really a thing,
then there's wide reliance on the constancy of light-speed,
and its effectively large value.
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of mumbling religious maniacs "improper"
clocks of TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.
So, in a sense it's like "two wrongs".
A common reduction expressing "incredulity, lack thereof": "Duh".
Actually, the speed of light is really, really slow compared
to the size of the universe. This, of course, is a proof
that tachyons MUST exist.
One theoretical problem for tachyons is the purported possibility that they cause
violations of causality.
Le 02/06/2024 à 19:48, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Actually, the speed of light is really, really slow compared
to the size of the universe. This, of course, is a proof
that tachyons MUST exist.
Tu dis n'importe quoi.
Les tachyons ne peuvent pas exister, car il s'agirait d'une absurdité physique.
Vous confondez possibilité technologique et possibilité théorique.
Comme si, un jour, on pouvait dessiner un carré rond, ou synthétiser
de
l'eau déshydratée.
Vous ne vous rendez pas compte que ce n'est pas une propriété technologique qui meut les photons à cette vitesse, mais une propriété
de l'espace et du temps : l'anisochronie.
Je reste stupéfait par la réflexion stupide des hommes qui mettent la charrue avant les boeufs.
That is not a valid science.
And they don't violate causality.
Le 03/06/2024 à 01:22, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
One theoretical problem for tachyons is the purported possibilitythat
they cause violations of causality.
Physicists pose two problems, that of ignorance and that of arrogance.
They pose the problem of ignorance, because they do not understand at
all the notion of anisochrony, which alone explains the practical impossibility of exceeding the speed of light.
It's as absurd as looking for round squares and dehydrated waters.
I repeat, it's not that it's technologically impossible, it's that it's
absurd.
This would amount to assuming a speed faster than an infinitely fast
speed
(if we correctly understand this notion which I already explained in
1986).
They pose the problem of arrogance becouse they insult instead of
thinking.
R.H.
Le 03/06/2024 à 01:22, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
That is not a valid science.
:))
And tachyons? Yes?
And they don't violate causality.
:))
It's impossible.
They will prefer to sink into the absurd and the ridiculous loss of causality.
Note that the speed of neutrinos is c, because their transaction is instantaneous (zero natural time).
It is true that if a supernovae explodes, the neutrinos, whose speed is
not modified by the interactions of intergalactic gases, can arrive
slightly before the light (supernovae of 1987).
But this does not come from the fact that they are faster than light
(this is impossible)
On 06/02/2024 04:22 PM, gharnagel wrote:
More invalid analogies.
Yeah, if you assume causality, then tachyons can't be fantastical,
they're only the result of something that is or did.
The neutrino physics are mostly about supersymmetry.
If you assume lack of causality it's pretty easy to arrive at
itself.
On 06/02/2024 07:12 PM, gharnagel wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/02/2024 04:22 PM, gharnagel wrote:
More invalid analogies.
Yeah, if you assume causality, then tachyons can't be fantastical,
they're only the result of something that is or did.
The neutrino physics are mostly about supersymmetry.
Nope. Neutrinos are firmly ensconced in the Standard model of
particle physics, while supersymmetric particles are not.
If you assume lack of causality it's pretty easy to arrive at
itself.
That's the problem with the conventional view of FTL phenomena.
It comes from the Lorentz transform:
(1) dx' = gamma(dx - v dt)
(2) dt' = gamma(dt - v dx/c^2)
From that comes
dx'/dt' = u' = (dx - v dt)/(dt - v dx/c^2)
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
u' becomes infinite when u = c^2/v, and infinity is a red flag
in physics. It means that the math becomes useless at and beyond
that point. Physicists, who should know better, have persisted
into that real and come up with all kinds of frivolous assertions
like time going backwards, negative energy, causality violation
and a "reinterpretation principle."
Mathematics really owes physics more and better
mathematics
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 03/06/2024 à 01:22, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
That is not a valid science.
:))
And tachyons? Yes?
They are hypothetical until confirmed by experiment, but they
cannot be refuted without experimental evidence.
On 06/02/2024 10:48 AM, gharnagel wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Most people know that dead-reckoning isn't really a thing,
then there's wide reliance on the constancy of light-speed,
and its effectively large value.
Actually, the speed of light is really, really slow compared
to the size of the universe. This, of course, is a proof
that tachyons MUST exist.
That's a great idea, you'll find that most all the "-ino"
partner particles for the "-on" particles are such super-luminal
flux for the otherwise usual flow of things and flux of light.
I don't get why optical light or nuclear radiation is called "electromagnetic" when it doesn't interact with the fields
of electricity and magnetism at all. They're two different things.
Lots of people rely on energy being everything or, you know,
the quantity of exchange and interchange, yet, it's only of
a particular form or exchange at any given time.
This is that after the great "electron physics" and "ultraviolet
catastrophe" is for a "neutrino physics" and "infrared perestroika",
where both catastrophe and perestroika are the same term about
openings in singularity theories, which are multiplicity theories.
The Aspect-type experiments and photinos represent an own sort
of re-flux about the photon sector.
Anyways "electromagnetic radiation" isn't the same as "optical
or radionuclear radiation".
Why light follows the geoedesy though it's massless has it
that the geodesy is still the shortest distance everywhere,
while also there's Fresnel effects in the large, one avers.
I still take the newpaper every day, yet I've found that
the mindless feuilletons, constant pandering, and yellow
journalism of the usual boob-tube media, are not very
level-headed. There's also that many estimates of click-fraud
in Internet media advertising are on the order of 20-50 percent
or the profits, where you figure advertising successful works
out about zero-sum. If Internet media advertising were regulated
just like regular advertising, it would sort of be a thing,
and taking uncommon profits and all, looks like wind-fall.
The "Standard Model of Particle Physics" is sort of closed,
yet there's a great and tremendous milieu of, "The Zoo",
about things like muon physics and beta decay, and why
it's a continuum mechanics again, and superluminal flux
and larger or more global and total symmetries, again is
about how it's a continuum mechanics.
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
Am Sonntag000002, 02.06.2024 um 20:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 06/02/2024 10:48 AM, gharnagel wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Most people know that dead-reckoning isn't really a thing,
then there's wide reliance on the constancy of light-speed,
and its effectively large value.
Actually, the speed of light is really, really slow compared
to the size of the universe. This, of course, is a proof
that tachyons MUST exist.
That's a great idea, you'll find that most all the "-ino"
partner particles for the "-on" particles are such super-luminal
flux for the otherwise usual flow of things and flux of light.
I don't get why optical light or nuclear radiation is called
"electromagnetic" when it doesn't interact with the fields
of electricity and magnetism at all. They're two different things.
Lots of people rely on energy being everything or, you know,
the quantity of exchange and interchange, yet, it's only of
a particular form or exchange at any given time.
This is that after the great "electron physics" and "ultraviolet
catastrophe" is for a "neutrino physics" and "infrared perestroika",
where both catastrophe and perestroika are the same term about
openings in singularity theories, which are multiplicity theories.
The Aspect-type experiments and photinos represent an own sort
of re-flux about the photon sector.
Anyways "electromagnetic radiation" isn't the same as "optical
or radionuclear radiation".
Why light follows the geoedesy though it's massless has it
that the geodesy is still the shortest distance everywhere,
while also there's Fresnel effects in the large, one avers.
I still take the newpaper every day, yet I've found that
the mindless feuilletons, constant pandering, and yellow
journalism of the usual boob-tube media, are not very
level-headed. There's also that many estimates of click-fraud
in Internet media advertising are on the order of 20-50 percent
or the profits, where you figure advertising successful works
out about zero-sum. If Internet media advertising were regulated
just like regular advertising, it would sort of be a thing,
and taking uncommon profits and all, looks like wind-fall.
The "Standard Model of Particle Physics" is sort of closed,
yet there's a great and tremendous milieu of, "The Zoo",
about things like muon physics and beta decay, and why
it's a continuum mechanics again, and superluminal flux
and larger or more global and total symmetries, again is
about how it's a continuum mechanics.
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
Think about this:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
I take spacetime of GR as 'background with features'.
That's the problem with the conventional view of FTL phenomena.
It comes from the Lorentz transform:
(1) dx' = gamma(dx - v dt)
(2) dt' = gamma(dt - v dx/c^2)
From that comes
dx'/dt' = u' = (dx - v dt)/(dt - v dx/c^2)
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
u' becomes infinite when u = c^2/v, and infinity is a red flag
in physics. It means that the math becomes useless at and beyond
that point. Physicists, who should know better, have persisted
into that real and come up with all kinds of frivolous assertions
like time going backwards, negative energy, causality violation
and a "reinterpretation principle."
Le 03/06/2024 à 04:12, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
That's the problem with the conventional view of FTL phenomena.
It comes from the Lorentz transform:
(1) dx' = gamma(dx - v dt)
(2) dt' = gamma(dt - v dx/c^2)
From that comes
dx'/dt' = u' = (dx - v dt)/(dt - v dx/c^2)
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
u' becomes infinite when u = c^2/v, and infinity is a red flag
in physics. It means that the math becomes useless at and beyond
that point. Physicists, who should know better, have persisted
into that real and come up with all kinds of frivolous assertions
Absolutely.
like time going backwards, negative energy, causality violation
and a "reinterpretation principle."
Yes, all this is not very normal.
Pour ce qui est des transformations de Poincaré-Lorentz, données par le fameux
mathématicien français,
qui était plus fort que Newton, Einstein et Leibniz réunis, elles conduisent
directement à:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?HqK7tE25UvDlFWACDo6XkDlMmc8@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This is a formula that is part of standard SR (i.e. Einstein), unrelated to your
idiotic rant.
You've done that before, numerous time. You want a medal for that?
Le 04/06/2024 à 16:51, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 03/06/2024 à 04:12, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
That's the problem with the conventional view of FTL phenomena.
It comes from the Lorentz transform:
(1) dx' = gamma(dx - v dt)
(2) dt' = gamma(dt - v dx/c^2)
From that comes
dx'/dt' = u' = (dx - v dt)/(dt - v dx/c^2)
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
u' becomes infinite when u = c^2/v, and infinity is a red flag
in physics. It means that the math becomes useless at and beyond
that point. Physicists, who should know better, have persisted
into that real and come up with all kinds of frivolous assertions
Absolutely.
like time going backwards, negative energy, causality violation
and a "reinterpretation principle."
Yes, all this is not very normal.
Pour ce qui est des transformations de Poincaré-Lorentz, données par
le fameux mathématicien français,
qui était plus fort que Newton, Einstein et Leibniz réunis, elles
conduisent directement à:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?HqK7tE25UvDlFWACDo6XkDlMmc8@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This is a formula that is part of standard SR (i.e. Einstein), unrelated
Le 04/06/2024 à 16:51, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Pour ce qui est des transformations de Poincaré-Lorentz, données parle
fameux mathématicien français, qui était plus fort que Newton,Einstein
et Leibniz réunis, elles conduisent directement à:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?HqK7tE25UvDlFWACDo6XkDlMmc8@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This is a formula that is part of standard SR (i.e. Einstein),
unrelated
to your idiotic rant.
You've done that before, numerous time. You want a medal for that?
Python wrote:
Le 04/06/2024 à 16:51, Richard Hachel a écrit :
le
Pour ce qui est des transformations de Poincaré-Lorentz, données par
fameux mathématicien français, qui était plus fort que Newton,Einstein
et Leibniz réunis, elles conduisent directement à:<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?HqK7tE25UvDlFWACDo6XkDlMmc8@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This is a formula that is part of standard SR (i.e. Einstein),
unrelated
to your idiotic rant.
You've done that before, numerous time. You want a medal for that?
Yes, it's correct. It is confirmed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
Python wrote:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?HqK7tE25UvDlFWACDo6XkDlMmc8@jntp/Data.Media:1>
You've done that before, numerous time. You want a medal for that?
Yes, it's correct.
Python wrote:
Le 04/06/2024 à 16:51, Richard Hachel a écrit :
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?HqK7tE25UvDlFWACDo6XkDlMmc8@jntp/Data.Media:1>
I wouldn't have used an equation from L'homme avec trois Nobels without confirmation.
Le 05/06/2024 à 06:11, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
I wouldn't have used an equation from L'homme avec trois Nobelswithout
confirmation.
On peut aussi donner cette équation sous la forme des vitesses
réelles,
elle sera toute aussi juste.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?aRfZr-wbqozZwG5Evb_96adSzWM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
Pas la peine d'aller voir si c'est vrai.
1. Je confirme
2. Pas sûr que vous trouverez cette équation quelque part.
N.B. Si quelqu'un veut la démonstration des équations, notamment de la première, qu'il le dise.
C'est très simple à faire.
R.H.
So what? The idiotic mumble of your idiotic
guru was not even consistent, and it has
been proven, poor halfbrain.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
So what? The idiotic mumble of your idiotic
guru was not even consistent, and it has
been proven, poor halfbrain.
So what?
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 05/06/2024 à 06:11, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
without
I wouldn't have used an equation from L'homme avec trois Nobels
confirmation.On peut aussi donner cette équation sous la forme des vitesses
réelles,
elle sera toute aussi juste.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?aRfZr-wbqozZwG5Evb_96adSzWM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
Pas la peine d'aller voir si c'est vrai.
1. Je confirme
2. Pas sûr que vous trouverez cette équation quelque part.
But what does it mean? I could write down all kinds of equations with
no
reference to reality.
W dniu 05.06.2024 o 14:05, gharnagel pisze:
But what does it mean? I could write down all kinds of equationswith
no reference to reality.
You could and you do, poor halfbrain.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.06.2024 o 14:05, gharnagel pisze:
with
But what does it mean? I could write down all kinds of equations
no reference to reality.
You could and you do, poor halfbrain.
You can't understand equations that Do refer to reality
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 05:36:12 |
Calls: | 7,823 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,768,959 |