One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity,
To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of science,
will however pose a small problem for a few months to the greatest
theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel.
A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformly
accelerated frames of reference, because if we set x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr)
it no longer works.
Richard Hachel wrote:
One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity,
To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of science, >>
will however pose a small problem for a few months to the greatest
theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel.
Hachel failed to define his terms, so that's neither fundamental nor beautiful.
A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformly
accelerated frames of reference, because if we set x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr)
it no longer works.
If the first equation is relativistic, the second surely is not.
Le 19/06/2024 à 20:55, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
science,One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity, To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of
will however pose a small problem for a few months to the greatest
theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel.
Hachel failed to define his terms, so that's neither fundamental nor beautiful.
x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr)A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformly accelerated frames of reference, because if we set
it no longer works.
If the first equation is relativistic, the second surely is not.
It is.
Je n'ai pas écrit:
x=(1/2)a.To²+Vo.To
but:
x=(1/2).a.Tr²+Vr.Tr
Cette dernière équation est relativiste.
Mais j'ai précisé qu'elle était relativiste, mais fausse.
Et j'ai demandé si on comprenait pourquoi?
R.H.
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 19/06/2024 à 20:55, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:science,
One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity,
To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of
x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr)
will however pose a small problem for a few months to the greatest
theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel.
Hachel failed to define his terms, so that's neither fundamental nor
beautiful.
A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformly
accelerated frames of reference, because if we set
it no longer works.
If the first equation is relativistic, the second surely is not.
It is.
Nope. You still haven't defined your terms. Therefore, your thesis is
void.
Je n'ai pas écrit:
x=(1/2)a.To²+Vo.To
but:
x=(1/2).a.Tr²+Vr.Tr
Cette dernière équation est relativiste.
Nope.
Mais j'ai précisé qu'elle était relativiste, mais fausse.
Et j'ai demandé si on comprenait pourquoi?
R.H.
I understand that you are full of baloney since you refuse to
define what To, Vo, Tr, Vr and a mean.
Le 20/06/2024 à 00:03, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 19/06/2024 à 20:55, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:science,
One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity,
To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of
x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr)
will however pose a small problem for a few months to the greatest
theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel.
Hachel failed to define his terms, so that's neither fundamental nor
beautiful.
A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformly
accelerated frames of reference, because if we set
it no longer works.
If the first equation is relativistic, the second surely is not.
It is.
Nope. You still haven't defined your terms. Therefore, your thesis is
void.
Je n'ai pas écrit:
x=(1/2)a.To²+Vo.To
but:
x=(1/2).a.Tr²+Vr.Tr
Cette dernière équation est relativiste.
Nope.
Mais j'ai précisé qu'elle était relativiste, mais fausse.
Et j'ai demandé si on comprenait pourquoi?
R.H.
I understand that you are full of baloney since you refuse to
define what To, Vo, Tr, Vr and a mean.
Sir, sir, I beg you to be consistent.
You cannot both contradict my equations, and then say that, poorly
defined, you do not understand their meaning.
R.H.
Le 20/06/2024 à 00:03, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 19/06/2024 à 20:55, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of
One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity, > >
science,
greatest > > theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel.will however pose a small problem for a few months to the
x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr)Hachel failed to define his terms, so that's neither fundamental nor >>> > beautiful.
A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformlyaccelerated frames of reference, because if we set
it no longer works.
If the first equation is relativistic, the second surely is not.
It is.
Nope. You still haven't defined your terms. Therefore, your thesis is
void.
Je n'ai pas écrit:
x=(1/2)a.To²+Vo.To
but:
x=(1/2).a.Tr²+Vr.Tr
Cette dernière équation est relativiste.
Nope.
Mais j'ai précisé qu'elle était relativiste, mais fausse.
Et j'ai demandé si on comprenait pourquoi?
R.H.
I understand that you are full of baloney since you refuse to
define what To, Vo, Tr, Vr and a mean.
Sir, sir, I beg you to be consistent.
You cannot both contradict my equations, and then say that, poorly
defined, you do not understand their meaning.
One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity,
To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of science, will however pose a small problem for a few months to the greatest
theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel.
A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformly
accelerated frames of reference, because if we set x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr)
it no longer works.
Now, if we look closely, reason makes us laugh.
My dear friends, do you understand WHY, in this specific case it does
not work.
WHY?
The answer is obvious if you correctly understand the theory of
relativity. That is to say if anyone read me.
If you haven't read me, you can't understand. Whether we think we're the biggest name in RR or whether we're called Poincaré or Einstein.
Who can answer me (since some people have to read me and understand the
SR in more depth).
R.H.
Den 19.06.2024 19:56, skrev Richard Hachel:
Who can answer me (since some people have to read me and understand the
SR in more depth).R.H.
It is evident that "Doctor Richard Hachel" has lost his mind.
It seems that he actually believes that he is "the greatest theorist of
our time" and a genius with three Nobel Prizes. He seems to have lost
contact with reality and is living in his own dream world.
It's kind of sad, and I no more find his idiocies funny.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is evident that "Doctor Richard Hachel" has lost his mind.
This is going to be very difficult to prove.
R.H.
Den 19.06.2024 19:56, skrev Richard Hachel:
One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity, To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of science, will however pose a small problem for a few months to the greatest theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel.
A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformly accelerated frames of reference, because if we set x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr) it no longer works.
Now, if we look closely, reason makes us laugh.
My dear friends, do you understand WHY, in this specific case it does not work.
WHY?
The answer is obvious if you correctly understand the theory of relativity. That is to say if anyone read me.
If you haven't read me, you can't understand. Whether we think we're the biggest name in RR or whether we're called Poincaré or Einstein.
Who can answer me (since some people have to read me and understand the SR in more depth).
R.H.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 360 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 132:35:30 |
| Calls: | 7,686 |
| Files: | 12,828 |
| Messages: | 5,711,366 |