We know the famous example of Doctor Hachel (that's me) entitled "the
traveler of Tau Ceti".

The Tau Ceti traveler is characteristic of special relativity, and its simplicity of understanding
(but no resolution) is now famous throughout the world.

We imagine a young woman, named Bella, to differentiate her from Stella
who is used to always traveling, in the examples, in uniform Galilean
movement. Beautiful journey always in accelerated mode at 10m/s² (i.e. 1.052ly/year²) starting from the earth.

Physicists, because they are curious, and above all competent, will easily calculate how long the journey in the terrestrial frame of reference will
last.

We will then place a watch on earth, a watch at 3 ly, a watch at 6 ly, a
watch at 9 ly, and a watch at 12 ly.

The watches were previously tuned in the same place, and are remarkably
atomic precise.

They are moved slowly to their position, to avoid any effect of dyschronotropia.

We ask Paul B. Andersen to please give the corresponding equation to use
to know these times.

Paul B. Andersen gives To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

Doctor Hachel, who is not an idiot (a doctorate, three Nobel prizes)
validates Paul's equation, and considers it to be completely accurate.

We then measure the duration of the trip.

When we move to level 3 ly, the local watch marks: 3.8345 years
When we move to level 6 ly, the local watch marks: 6.8852 years
When we move to level 9 ly, the local watch marks: 9.9050 years
When we cross Tau Ceti (12 ly), the local watch says: 12.9156 years

We have therefore just verified experimentally that the equation is
correct.

It seems very simple, but we now know Richard Hachel, and we know what
kind of madness attacked his neurons.

We will then say: What is the observable time that exists between the
passage in (3ly) and the passage in (6ly)?

Or again: And between the passage in 9 ly and Tau Ceti?

This is where everything descends into horror.

And there, it is all of humanity placed on the scale of a scale which will
sink into stupidity and ignorance, and Hachel on the other, who will beg
that we listen to him, and that we stop playing the little relativist
idiots with the simple authorization that we are "in a pack" and that "if
it wasn't like that, what we have to do, it would be known".

We just forget one thing.

A stupid thing to cry about.

R.H.

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

On 2024-06-01 16:58:22 +0000, palsing said:

Richard Hachel wrote:

We know the famous example of Doctor Hachel (that's me) entitled "the
traveler of Tau Ceti".

The Tau Ceti traveler is characteristic of special relativity, and its
simplicity of understanding
(but no resolution) is now famous throughout the world.

We imagine a young woman, named Bella, to differentiate her from Stella

who is used to always traveling, in the examples, in uniform Galilean
movement. Beautiful journey always in accelerated mode at 10m/s² (i.e.
1.052ly/year²) starting from the earth.

Physicists, because they are curious, and above all competent, will
easily calculate how long the journey in the terrestrial frame of reference >> will last.

We will then place a watch on earth, a watch at 3 ly, a watch at 6 ly,
a

Doctor Hachel, who is not an idiot (a doctorate, three Nobel prizes)
validates Paul's equation, and considers it to be completely accurate.

Now we know for certain that you are a bald-faced liar. No person has
ever won the Nobel 3 times, although one institution has...

You beat me to it. If anyone had doubts that we were in the presence of
a crackpot this easily checkable lie should remove all doubt. Apart
from the three Nobel Prizes, he has never revealed which university
awarded his claimed "doctorate", not counting medical: I'm willing to
believe he has medical qualifications (though I wouldn't risk going to
him for medical advice). To be meaningful in this context a doctorate
means a scientific doctorate, preferably in physics or mathematics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize#:~:text=The%20Nobel%20Prizes%2C%20beginning%20in,more%20than%20one%20Nobel%20Prize.

Laureates who have received multiple Nobel Prizes: (by date of second
Prize)
Marie Curie; received the prize twice. Nobel Prize in Physics (1903) and Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1911).
International Committee of the Red Cross; received the prize thrice.
Nobel Peace Prize (1917, 1944, 1963).
Linus Pauling; received the prize twice. Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1954)
and Nobel Peace Prize (1962).
John Bardeen; received the prize twice. Nobel Prize in Physics (1956,
1972).
Frederick Sanger; received the prize twice. Nobel Prize in Chemistry
(1958, 1980).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; received the prize twice. Nobel Peace Prize (1954, 1981).
Karl Barry Sharpless; received the prize twice. Nobel Prize in Chemistry (2001, 2022).

I hadn't realized that there were so many. If I'd been asked (without
looking it up) I'd have mentioned Marie Curie, Linus Pauling and Fred
Sanger.


--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

Le 01/06/2024 à 19:22, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

You beat me to it. If anyone had doubts that we were in the presence of
a crackpot this easily checkable lie should remove all doubt. Apart
from the three Nobel Prizes, he has never revealed which university
awarded his claimed "doctorate", not counting medical: I'm willing to
believe he has medical qualifications (though I wouldn't risk going to
him for medical advice). To be meaningful in this context a doctorate
means a scientific doctorate, preferably in physics or mathematics.

You get angry over very few things, and the problem is that you don't
answer the question.

I'm a Usenet dinosaur, and I think this system is fantastic, especially
since now we also have Nemo, with the inclusion of PDF images, etc...

The problem is obviously human, everyone is playing the monkey game, and
there is practically no more interesting background.

It's really a shame.

I recall the subject of the post, a fundamental subject as often with
Hachel but on which we spit, because always always always humans want to
mark their moronic territory.

Reread my post, go sit in an armchair, breathe deeply, digest the content,
and respond with interesting things.

R.H.

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

Richard Hachel wrote:

I recall the subject of the post, a fundamental subject as often with
Hachel but on which we spit, because always always always humans want
to mark their moronic territory.

Reread my post, go sit in an armchair, breathe deeply, digest the
content, and respond with interesting things.

R.H.

I didn't see any interesting things in your original post. Here's the
crux as I see it:

When we move to level 3 ly, the local watch marks: 3.8345 years
When we move to level 6 ly, the local watch marks: 6.8852 years
When we move to level 9 ly, the local watch marks: 9.9050 years
When we cross Tau Ceti (12 ly), the local watch says: 12.9156 years

We have therefore just verified experimentally that the equation is correct.

It seems very simple, but we now know Richard Hachel, and we know what

kind of madness attacked his neurons.

We will then say: What is the observable time that exists between the

passage in (3ly) and the passage in (6ly)?

Or again: And between the passage in 9 ly and Tau Ceti?

Well, 6.8852 - 3.8345 = 3.0507 and 12.9156 - 9.9050 = 3.0106. So what?

You're not using quite the correct values. but it's close enough for
gov't. work. I get 3.84764, 6.8999, 9.9203 and 12.9313 using 9.82
m/sec^2
and 1 light-year = 31557600 seconds. The problem is that you haven't
said
what time is observed by whom. The time you posted and I posted are
the
times that would be observed by observers stationed at 3, 6, 9 ad 12
L-yrs
from earth and stationary wrt earth. If you're thinking of something
else,
why are you expecting others to read your mind? After all, we're not
as
smart as someone who has collected three Nobel prizes :-)

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 05:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Richard Hachel wrote:

I recall the subject of the post, a fundamental subject as often with
Hachel but on which we spit, because always always always humans want
to mark their moronic territory.

Reread my post, go sit in an armchair, breathe deeply, digest the
content, and respond with interesting things.

R.H.

I didn't see any interesting things in your original post. Here's the
crux as I see it:

When we move to level 3 ly, the local watch marks: 3.8345 years
When we move to level 6 ly, the local watch marks: 6.8852 years
When we move to level 9 ly, the local watch marks: 9.9050 years
When we cross Tau Ceti (12 ly), the local watch says: 12.9156 years

We have therefore just verified experimentally that the equation is
correct.

It seems very simple, but we now know Richard Hachel, and we know what

kind of madness attacked his neurons.

We will then say: What is the observable time that exists between the

passage in (3ly) and the passage in (6ly)?

Or again: And between the passage in 9 ly and Tau Ceti?

Well, 6.8852 - 3.8345 = 3.0507 and 12.9156 - 9.9050 = 3.0106. So what?

You're not using quite the correct values. but it's close enough for
gov't. work. I get 3.84764, 6.8999, 9.9203 and 12.9313 using 9.82
m/sec^2
and 1 light-year = 31557600 seconds. The problem is that you haven't
said
what time is observed by whom. The time you posted and I posted are
the
times that would be observed by observers stationed at 3, 6, 9 ad 12
L-yrs
from earth and stationary wrt earth. If you're thinking of something
else,
why are you expecting others to read your mind? After all, we're not
as
smart as someone who has collected three Nobel prizes :-)

This is an intelligent statement, but unfortunately there are few of them
on Usenet, and not only in the physical sciences.

It is a great fault for men to mock other men without even understanding
what they are saying.

However, you still make the effort to answer me, which shows a certain
courage, in a world where almost always, we get into the habit of running
away with our tails between our legs as soon as good old Richard Hachel
shows up at the office. ball.

So I will answer your question, and I hope, at least, that you will
understand the genius of the answer, because it is not a foregone
conclusion that we can understand something so unintuitive.

Please use the data I gave for the calculations, which are very simple
(x=12, a=1.052).

What I present as "the traveler from Tau Ceti" is only part of the
problem, we will then bring in another traveler (Bella's sister, Stella)
and from two observers, we will go to three (with Terrence ).

We give the precise figures, passing in A (3 ly), in B (6 ly), in C (9 ly)
in D (12 ly).

Now, the terrible warning that I repeat: be careful, in relativity, when
we go very fast (particles) or when we go very far (rockets) the notions
of time and speed become relativistic, and do not add up. more like
commonly.

Furthermore, things are deformed and proper times are measured differently
from the outside, and the observable speeds are no longer the real speeds.

Things are still present, but distorted as if through a mirror.

The big question that will arise is:
If we live in illusion, can we add the illusions together in a common and decimal way?

It seems not.

And this causes a shock to the unprepared mind (I have thought about it seriously and diligently for 40 years, and I know that it is not obvious a priori).

So, you say to yourself, that you have to do Δt=To(6)-To(3) to obtain the
time taken between A and B, or even Dt=To(9)-To(6) to obtain the time
between B and C.

This seems unavoidable to you, and you are absolutely certain, because it
seems incoherent and stupid to you to think otherwise.

It seems absurd to you that the addition of two parts does not equal the
whole.

And yet, I am the one who is right.

Just as it is very counterintuitive to say that the addition of
relativistic longitudinal velocities is 0.5c+0.5c=0.8c, and not c,
it is even more counterintuitive to say that sometimes the two parts of a
whole are not equal to the whole.

Now we need to explain WHY.

I'll explain why.

R.H.

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

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 09:20, Richard Hachel pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 05:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Richard Hachel wrote:

When we move to level 3 ly, the local watch marks: 3.8345 years
When we move to level 6 ly, the local watch marks: 6.8852 years
When we move to level 9 ly, the local watch marks: 9.9050 years
When we cross Tau Ceti (12 ly), the local watch says: 12.9156 years

We have therefore just verified experimentally that the equation is
correct.

It seems very simple, but we now know Richard Hachel, and we know what >>>
kind of madness attacked his neurons.

We will then say: What is the observable time that exists between the

passage in (3ly) and the passage in (6ly)?

Well, 6.8852 - 3.8345 = 3.0507

No.
As obvious as it may seem, this result is false.
I understand the immense astonishment I cause by saying this

You're not causing any astonishment,
the thing is too stupid to cause even laugh.

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 05:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Richard Hachel wrote:

When we move to level 3 ly, the local watch marks: 3.8345 years
When we move to level 6 ly, the local watch marks: 6.8852 years
When we move to level 9 ly, the local watch marks: 9.9050 years
When we cross Tau Ceti (12 ly), the local watch says: 12.9156 years

We have therefore just verified experimentally that the equation is
correct.

It seems very simple, but we now know Richard Hachel, and we know what

kind of madness attacked his neurons.

We will then say: What is the observable time that exists between the

passage in (3ly) and the passage in (6ly)?

Well, 6.8852 - 3.8345 = 3.0507

No.
As obvious as it may seem, this result is false.
I understand the immense astonishment I cause by saying this, because I
say that the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts.
But your result, which you think is quite simple, is false.
I explain why.
When you use, and correctly, To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) an equation which
should be known by heart by all students from the age of 17, you do so
under two specific conditions.
1. The departure is in O (on land) and at rest.
2. Measuring time requires two watches, one placed at O ​​and the
other placed at A (3 ly), B (6 ly), C (9 ly), D (12 ly).

The measurements are therefore correct.

Now, I want to measure the time taken between A and B. And you try to give
it to me by doing a simple subtraction, as this may seem so obvious to
you.

However, this is false.

As incredible as it may seem if we don't understand what we are doing,
that is to say placing ourselves at the level of two other watches which
are not in O.

It is not the same thing, whereas the observable times are deformations of
the proper times (which are the real times because they are not distorted
by the natural anisochrony present between any two watches, whatever they
may be). We cannot subtract one deformation from another deformation in
such a simplistic way, and it is a serious relativistic mistake to do so.

Yet this is what physicists do, who then obtain times which are not
correct, instantaneous speeds which are not correct, and proper times
which are not correct either.

For instantaneous observable velocities the correct equation is: Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

For the observable times between games taken at random, it should be
noted:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uS_y7EWpgPGPmPD64dwz49GUbzs@jntp/Data.Media:1>


Thank you for listening.

R.H.

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

Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 02/06/2024 à 05:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Richard Hachel wrote:

When we move to level 3 ly, the local watch marks: 3.8345 years
When we move to level 6 ly, the local watch marks: 6.8852 years
When we move to level 9 ly, the local watch marks: 9.9050 years
When we cross Tau Ceti (12 ly), the local watch says: 12.9156 years

We have therefore just verified experimentally that the equation is

correct.

We will then say: What is the observable time that exists between

the

passage in (3ly) and the passage in (6ly)?

Well, 6.8852 - 3.8345 = 3.0507

No.

YES!

As obvious as it may seem, this result is false.

Nope.

I understand the immense astonishment I cause by saying this, because I

say that the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts.
But your result, which you think is quite simple, is false.

The astonishment is that Dr. Hachel has let his three Nobel prizes go
to
his head. They are not in relativity nor in mathematics. Two of my
four Nobel prizes are.

I explain why.
When you use, and correctly, To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) an equation which should be known by heart by all students from the age of 17, you do so
under two specific conditions.
1. The departure is in O (on land) and at rest.
2. Measuring time requires two watches, one placed at O ​​and the
other placed at A (3 ly), B (6 ly), C (9 ly), D (12 ly).

Wrongo. There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at A, B, C
and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized. You used slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct. Better to use Einstein synchronization.

The measurements are therefore correct.

Now, I want to measure the time taken between A and B. And you try to
give it to me by doing a simple subtraction, as this may seem so obvious
to
you.

It's IOTTMCO.

However, this is false.

Nope.

As incredible as it may seem if we don't understand what we are doing,
that is to say placing ourselves at the level of two other watches
which
are not in O.

It is not the same thing, whereas the observable times are deformations
of the proper times (which are the real times because they are not
distorted by the natural anisochrony present between any two watches, whatever they may be).

You error hugely. The watches have no "anisochrony" because they are stationary to one another and they have been synchronized.

We cannot subtract one deformation from another deformation in
such a simplistic way, and it is a serious relativistic mistake to do
so.

The mistake is one who has three Nobel prizes in basket weaving
purports
to know relativity.

Yet this is what physicists do, who then obtain times which are not
correct, instantaneous speeds which are not correct, and proper times
which are not correct either.

And Nobel prizes which are not correct :-))

For instantaneous observable velocities the correct equation is: Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

Velocity is irrelevant since the watches are at rest wrt earth. They
record the time as the ship flies past.

For the observable times between games taken at random, it should be
noted:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uS_y7EWpgPGPmPD64dwz49GUbzs@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Thank you for listening.

R.H.

Thank you for not babbling nonsense in the future.

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

When we move to level 3 ly, the local watch marks: 3.8345 years
When we move to level 6 ly, the local watch marks: 6.8852 years
When we move to level 9 ly, the local watch marks: 9.9050 years
When we cross Tau Ceti (12 ly), the local watch says: 12.9156 years

Correct.

We will then say: What is the observable time that exists between

the passage in (3ly) and the passage in (6ly)?

Well, 6.8852 - 3.8345 = 3.0507

No.

YES!

No, it's no correct.

There is something here that you don't seem to understand.

As obvious as it may seem, this result is false.

Nope.

There is something here that you don't seem to understand.

R.H.

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Wrongo. There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at A, B, C
and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized. You used slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct. Better to use Einstein synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in B, in C,
and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this corresponded to.

This is an abstract, but very useful, synchronization based on the
perception of the "present of the universe" by a distant observer placed
in a hypothetical fourth spatial dimension.

That’s what this synchronization is all about.

And this is the one we apply.

Problem: as it is based on the abstract, and this POINT of the universe fluctuates depending on the position of objects in the universe and the
speed of the frames of reference, this quickly turns into a conceptual disaster.

R.H.

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

For instantaneous observable velocities the correct equation is:
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

Velocity is irrelevant since the watches are at rest wrt earth. They
record the time as the ship flies past.

Il ne vous vient pas à l'esprit que vous ne comprenez pas ce que je dis?
? ?

Putain mais c'est pas vrai, merde!!!

R.H.

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

You error hugely. The watches have no "anisochrony" because they are stationary to one another and they have been synchronized.

We cannot subtract one deformation from another deformation in
such a simplistic way, and it is a serious relativistic mistake to do
so.

The mistake is one who has three Nobel prizes in basket weaving
purports
to know relativity.

Watches necessarily have anisochrony, but you don't understand this term.

You are confusing it with dyschronotropia.

It is obvious that two watches placed in the same frame of reference have
the same chronotropy.

You're talking about a dog, and I'm talking about a cat.

You would also have to be a complete idiot to think that two watches
placed on a table three meters apart do not rotate at the same speed.

That would be stupid!!!

They rotate at the same speed. Obviously.

They have the same measurement of time.

They have the same chronotropy.

R.H.

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at A, B, C
and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You used slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use Einstein
synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in B, in C,
and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this corresponded to.

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to
understand what he meant.

This is an abstract, but very useful, synchronization based on the
perception of the "present of the universe" by a distant observer placed
in a hypothetical fourth spatial dimension.

That’s what this synchronization is all about.

This bunch of nonsense is unrelated to Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure. This is idiotic stuff you made up.

And this is the one we apply.

Problem: as it is based on the abstract, and this POINT of the universe fluctuates depending on the position of objects in the universe and the
speed of the frames of reference, this quickly turns into a conceptual disaster.

The disaster is that a psychotic egomaniac crank of your kind is
practicing medicine.

The other disaster, which is not a big deal, is that you failed to
understand what Relativity is about, and that you'll always fail.

A psychotic megalomaniac medical doctor failed to understand SR. So
what?

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:05, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

For instantaneous observable velocities the correct equation is:
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

Velocity is irrelevant since the watches are at rest wrt earth.  They
record the time as the ship flies past.

Il ne vous vient pas à l'esprit que vous ne comprenez pas ce que je dis?
? ?

Putain mais c'est pas vrai, merde!!!

Could it come to your mind that you express yourself very badly and
that you are utterly confused on very basic stuff instead?

Not to mention that answering in French in an English speaking group
is pointless. As many people noticed you do that every time your
nonsense is pointed out. Coincidence?

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:04, Python a écrit :

A psychotic megalomaniac medical doctor failed to understand SR. So
what?

There are three errors in your sentence. :))

Je te laisse chercher lesquelles.

R.H.

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

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at A, B, C
and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You used slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use Einstein
synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in B, in
C, and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I
explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this corresponded to.

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to
understand what he meant.

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 02/06/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at A, B, C >>>> and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You used slow >>>> clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use Einstein
synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in B, in
C, and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I
explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this corresponded to.

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to
understand what he meant.

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?

Still struggling with functions and domains, Woz? Sad...

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 18:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:52, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at A, B, C >>>>>> and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You used >>>>>> slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use Einstein >>>>>> synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in B,
in C, and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I
explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this corresponded to. >>>>

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to
understand what he meant.

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?

Still struggling with functions and domains, Woz?

No, Pyt, I don't.

You definitely are. Sorry.

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

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:52, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at A, B, C >>>>> and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You used slow >>>>> clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use Einstein
synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in B, in
C, and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I
explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this corresponded to.

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to
understand what he meant.

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?

Still struggling with functions and domains, Woz?

No, Pyt, I don't. A slander like usual.
So, 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)

On 6/1/2024 8:50 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Doctor Hachel, who is not an idiot (a doctorate, three Nobel prizes)

Hmmm, didn't Mitch Raemsch also claim to have three Nobel Prizes? Mitch
has been gone since Google Groups shut down, is Hachel the ghost of Mitch?

Also, I read that referring to oneself in the third person (as "Dr."
Hachel repeatedly does) is a symptom of split personality disorder or schizophrenia or something.

We just forget one thing.

A stupid thing to cry about.

Also "we" when referring to himself.

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

On 6/2/2024 11:02 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

We cannot subtract one deformation from another deformation in such a
simplistic way, and it is a serious relativistic mistake to do
so.

The mistake is one who has three Nobel prizes in basket weaving
purports
to know relativity.

Watches necessarily have anisochrony, but you don't understand this term.

Because you made it up, it's not a part of English or physics.

You are confusing it with dyschronotropia.

Another made up word with no known meaning.

It is obvious that two watches placed in the same frame of reference
have the same chronotropy.

They have the same chronotropy.

And yet another made up word.

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

Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

For instantaneous observable velocities the correct equation is:
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

Velocity is irrelevant since the watches are at rest wrt earth. They record the time as the ship flies past.

Il ne vous vient pas à l'esprit que vous ne comprenez pas ce que je
dis?
? ?

Why do you think you can't understand physics?

Putain mais c'est pas vrai, merde!!!

R.H.

Why would you want to defecate on your wife?

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

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 18:22, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 18:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:52, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at A, >>>>>>> B, C
and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You used >>>>>>> slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use Einstein >>>>>>> synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in B,
in C, and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I
explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this corresponded >>>>>> to.

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to
understand what he meant.

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?

Still struggling with functions and domains, Woz?

No, Pyt, I don't.

You definitely are. Sorry.

No, Pyt, I don't. A slander like usual, sorry.
So, 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 02/06/2024 à 19:04, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 18:22, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 18:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:52, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>>>>>> Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >>>>>>>> Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at A, >>>>>>>> B, C

and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You
used slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use Einstein >>>>>>>> synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in B, >>>>>>> in C, and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I
explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this
corresponded to.

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to
understand what he meant.

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?

Still struggling with functions and domains, Woz?

No, Pyt, I don't.

You definitely are. Sorry.

No, Pyt, I don't

You are. Sorry about that...

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

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 19:04, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 18:22, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 18:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:52, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>>>>>>> Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >>>>>>>>> Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at >>>>>>>>> A, B, C

and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You >>>>>>>>> used slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use Einstein >>>>>>>>> synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in >>>>>>>> B, in C, and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I >>>>>>>> explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this
corresponded to.

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to >>>>>>> understand what he meant.

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?

Still struggling with functions and domains, Woz?

No, Pyt, I don't.

You definitely are. Sorry.

No, Pyt, I don't

You are. Sorry about that...

No, Pyt, I'm not. A shitty slander like usual,
sorry about that...
So, 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 02/06/2024 à 20:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 19:04, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 18:22, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 18:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:52, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>>>>>>>> Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at >>>>>>>>>> A, B, C

and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You >>>>>>>>>> used slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use Einstein >>>>>>>>>> synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in >>>>>>>>> B, in C, and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I >>>>>>>>> explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this
corresponded to.

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to >>>>>>>> understand what he meant.

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?

Still struggling with functions and domains, Woz?

No, Pyt, I don't.

You definitely are. Sorry.

No, Pyt, I don't

You are. Sorry about that...

No, Pyt, I'm not.

Of course you are.

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

Le 02/06/2024 à 21:55, Python a écrit :

Le 02/06/2024 à 20:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 19:04, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 18:22, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 18:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:52, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Still struggling with functions and domains, Woz?

No, Pyt, I don't.

You definitely are. Sorry.

No, Pyt, I don't

You are. Sorry about that...

No, Pyt, I'm not.

Of course you are.

No, he's not.

R.H.

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

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 21:55, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 20:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 19:04, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 18:22, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 18:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:52, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.06.2024 o 17:04, Python pisze:

Le 02/06/2024 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> Le 02/06/2024 à 15:43, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> Wrongo.  There must be FIVE watches, one at O and one each at >>>>>>>>>>> A, B, C

and D.
You correctly specified that they must be synchronized.  You >>>>>>>>>>> used slow
clock
transport which is approximately correct.  Better to use >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein
synchronization.

There are five watches, one in O, the other in A, the other in >>>>>>>>>> B, in C, and in D.

We are going to carry out an Einstein synchronization, which I >>>>>>>>>> explained (because Einstein does not do it) WHAT this
corresponded to.

He did. You've just shown that you are too stupid and stubborn to >>>>>>>>> understand what he meant.

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?

Still struggling with functions and domains, Woz?

No, Pyt, I don't.

You definitely are. Sorry.

No, Pyt, I don't

You are. Sorry about that...

No, Pyt, I'm not.

Of course you are.

Of course I'm not. Of course you're lying
and slandering, as expected from a piece
of relativistic shit.
So, 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)

Den 01.06.2024 14:50, skrev Richard Hachel:

We know the famous example of Doctor Hachel (that's me) entitled "the traveler of Tau Ceti".

The Tau Ceti traveler is characteristic of special relativity, and its simplicity of understanding
(but no resolution) is now famous throughout the world.

We imagine a young woman, named Bella, to differentiate her from Stella
who is used to always traveling, in the examples, in uniform Galilean movement. Beautiful journey always in accelerated mode at 10m/s² (i.e. 1.052ly/year²) starting from the earth.

Physicists, because they are curious, and above all competent, will
easily calculate how long the journey in the terrestrial frame of
reference will last.

We will then place a watch on earth, a watch at 3 ly, a watch at 6 ly, a watch at 9 ly, and a watch at 12 ly.

The watches were previously tuned in the same place, and are remarkably atomic precise.

They are moved slowly to their position, to avoid any effect of dyschronotropia.

We ask Paul B. Andersen to please give the corresponding equation to use
to know these times.

Paul B. Andersen gives To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

Doctor Hachel, who is not an idiot (a doctorate, three Nobel prizes) validates Paul's equation, and considers it to be completely accurate.

I strongly suspect that this is written by a troll pretending to
be Richard Hachel.

A very successive troll, since several have taken the bait.

(I could be wrong, but I don't thing Richard Hachel is so stupid
that he would claim to have three Nobel Prizes)

We then measure the duration of the trip.

When we move to level 3 ly, the local watch marks: 3.8345 years
When we move to level 6 ly, the local watch marks: 6.8852 years
When we move to level 9 ly, the local watch marks: 9.9050 years
When we cross Tau Ceti (12 ly), the local watch says: 12.9156 years

We have therefore just verified experimentally that the equation is
correct.

It seems very simple, but we now know Richard Hachel, and we know what
kind of madness attacked his neurons.

We will then say: What is the observable time that exists between the
passage in (3ly) and the passage in (6ly)?

Or again: And between the passage in 9 ly and Tau Ceti?

This is where everything descends into horror.

And there, it is all of humanity placed on the scale of a scale which
will sink into stupidity and ignorance, and Hachel on the other, who
will beg that we listen to him, and that we stop playing the little relativist idiots with the simple authorization that we are "in a pack"
and that "if it wasn't like that, what we have to do, it would be known".

We just forget one thing.

A stupid thing to cry about.

R.H.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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