Beauty is the splendor of truth.
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
We are therefore going to talk about a sensitive subject, the notion of relativistic aberration.
A cube is placed in front of an observer, the yellow front side of which
is the only one visible.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This face is 60 meters away, and point M of the cube, relative to this observer, is exactly 60 meters away.
Another observer placed in R', with relative speed Vo=0.8c in the x'ox direction, crosses the first observer at the same place, at the same
time.
For the moment, we are not looking for anything too complicated, namely
what will become of the entire cube.
No.
We breathe, we breathe, we go very slowly so as not to fall into a
number of hidden traps or false concepts.
We just ask, to start...
Where will the point M' in R' corresponding to M in R be located?
Note that in Hachel, two joint observers have strictly the same vision
of the universe (but with an aberration in x). Everything that is seen
by
one is seen at the same moment by the other; everything that is seen is
seen
by the other and vice versa; nothing that is not seen by one can be seen
by the other, and vice versa.
This is very important to understand.
A contradictor who already comes to doubt, would show that he already completely misunderstands SR as it should be taught.
R.H.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:30:07 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Beauty is the splendor of truth.
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
Socrates: the good, the beautiful and the true.
We are therefore going to talk about a sensitive subject, the notion of
relativistic aberration.
A cube is placed in front of an observer, the yellow front side of which
is the only one visible.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This face is 60 meters away, and point M of the cube, relative to this
observer, is exactly 60 meters away.
Another observer placed in R', with relative speed Vo=0.8c in the x'ox
direction, crosses the first observer at the same place, at the same
time.
For the moment, we are not looking for anything too complicated, namely
what will become of the entire cube.
No.
We breathe, we breathe, we go very slowly so as not to fall into a
number of hidden traps or false concepts.
We just ask, to start...
Where will the point M' in R' corresponding to M in R be located?
Note that in Hachel, two joint observers have strictly the same vision
of the universe (but with an aberration in x). Everything that is seen
by
one is seen at the same moment by the other; everything that is seen is
seen
by the other and vice versa; nothing that is not seen by one can be seen
by the other, and vice versa.
This is very important to understand.
A contradictor who already comes to doubt, would show that he already
completely misunderstands SR as it should be taught.
R.H.
Dr. Hachel isn't being honest here. The two observers do NOT have the
same
"vision" of the universe. The cube
Dr. Hachel isn't being honest here. The two observers do NOT have the
same
"vision" of the universe. The cube with NOT be 60 meters away for the
moving
observer because of length contraction: D will only be 36 meters, and
as for
"vision," the observer will see the cube >36 meters away because of the finite
speed of light. I feel no need nor desire to work this out, let alone
do the
off-axis calculations because I have better things to do with my time.
I
worked out relativistic aberration calculations a long time ago to my satisfaction.
Dr. Hachel should study the simpler relativistic situations, which he
has shown
that he does not understand.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:58:07 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
I beg you to understand something about the simple things I say here on
this forum.
Feel assured, I DO understand.
1. Two observers who cross paths, and according to Hachel's (or
Poincaré's, properly understood) transformations, have exactly the same
vision of the universe and at the same instant (as long as we understand
the notion of universal simultaneity).
Dr. Hachel is describing Newton's universe, not Poincaré's.
Le 15/07/2024 à 04:52, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Dr. Hachel isn't being honest here. The two observers do NOT have the
same "vision" of the universe. The cube with NOT be 60 meters away
for the moving observer because of length contraction: D will only be
36 meters, and as for "vision," the observer will see the cube >36
meters away because of the finite speed of light.
....
Dr. Hachel should study the simpler relativistic situations, which he
has shown that he does not understand.
I beg you to understand something about the simple things I say here on
this forum.
1. Two observers who cross paths, and according to Hachel's (or
Poincaré's, properly understood) transformations, have exactly the same vision of the universe and at the same instant (as long as we understand
the notion of universal simultaneity).
2. This means that whatever is seen by one is seen by the other, and
that nothing that is not seen by one can be seen by the other.
However, it is very clear.
I'm not begging you to accept it, I'm begging you to understand it.
You talk to me about contraction of distances and you tell me that for
the second observer, the distance will no longer be 60 meters.
However, no physicist in the world has said this stupidity,
and everyone agrees that it only affects transverse movements.
It is obvious, on the diagram, that the distance will remain the
same for the two observers (I mean between the two horizontal
parallels formed by the movement of the second observer
and the movement of the cube relative to him).
R.H.
W dniu 15.07.2024 o 04:52, gharnagel pisze:
Gary, poor halfbrain, a cube is an Euclidean
prejudice refuted by your idiot guru. Your
knowledge of your beloved Shit is surely
only skin deep...
Le 15/07/2024 à 07:15, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 15.07.2024 o 04:52, gharnagel pisze:
Gary, poor halfbrain, a cube is an Euclidean
prejudice refuted by your idiot guru. Your
knowledge of your beloved Shit is surely
only skin deep...
So let Gary answer, and don't insult him.
We are faced with a cube,
Le 15/07/2024 à 14:33, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:58:07 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
onI beg you to understand something about the simple things I say here
this forum.
Feel assured, I DO understand.
So your presence is a true miracle.
same1. Two observers who cross paths, and according to Hachel's (or Poincaré's, properly understood) transformations, have exactly the
understandvision of the universe and at the same instant (as long as we
the notion of universal simultaneity).
Dr. Hachel is describing Newton's universe, not Poincaré's.
No.
No no. Absolutely not.
For example, if you ask Hachel what is the duration of a uniformly accelerated journey to Tau Ceti, he will answer:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
and he will ask all students around the world to learn this formula by
heart.
This is not a Newtonian formula.
We will say: therefore he is a relativist like Einstein.
No, he is a relativist like Hachel, and uses a different geometry for
space and time problems.
As well as different equations, sometimes different transformations. But
not much Newtonian in there.
Example: what is the formula giving the instantaneous speed of uniformly accelerated objects?
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)
This formula does not exist either in Newton or Einstein.
Another example: transformations into rotating frames of reference.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?_hiIkN_NB6Jm2XOJZeHK7Fy9L2E@jntp/Data.Media:1>
These transformations do not exist neither in Newton nor in Einstein.
R.H.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:55:23 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
"Universal simultaneity" IS Newtonian physics.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:55:23 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
No, he is a relativist like Hachel, and uses a different geometry for
space and time problems.
And wrong.
Example: what is the formula giving the instantaneous speed of uniformly
accelerated objects?
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)
This formula does not exist either in Newton or Einstein.
And does not describe anything in the universe.
Another example: transformations into rotating frames of reference.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?_hiIkN_NB6Jm2XOJZeHK7Fy9L2E@jntp/Data.Media:1>
These transformations do not exist neither in Newton nor in Einstein.
R.H.
And do not describe anything in the universe.
And do not describe anything in the universe. Making up equations out
of
thin air does not make one a savant.
Le 15/07/2024 à 18:12, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:55:23 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
forNo, he is a relativist like Hachel, and uses a different geometry
space and time problems.
And wrong.
Prove?
uniformlyExample: what is the formula giving the instantaneous speed of
accelerated objects?
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)
This formula does not exist either in Newton or Einstein.
And does not describe anything in the universe.
No, YOU, you say that this formula does not describe anything in the universe.
Another example: transformations into rotating frames of reference.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?_hiIkN_NB6Jm2XOJZeHK7Fy9L2E@jntp/Data.Media:1>
Einstein.These transformations do not exist neither in Newton nor in
R.H.
And do not describe anything in the universe.
Idem. YOU, you say that...
R.H.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:08:01 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
As a physicist, I do say that. But physicists have been wrong before,
so prove
that I'm wrong.
Le 15/07/2024 à 22:24, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:08:01 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
As a physicist, I do say that. But physicists have been wrong before,
so prove
that I'm wrong.
What is interesting about you is that you do not despise, you do not
insult, and you seek to understand things.
You also seem to understand my position without saying anything.
My position is this: the theory of relativity is true, at least in some beginnings, but if we carry the ideas to the end, there are things that
go wrong, both experimentally, and at the same time ( and above all) theoretically.
Absurdities and contradictions appear in the equations.
Already forty years ago, I noticed that things did not fit, and today, I
am strong enough to:
1. Show irrefutably that it does not hold using apparent velocities
(what we could see in telescopes).
2. Explain why.
3. Give what I believe to be correct for the whole theory, (including uniformly accelerated frames and rotating frames).
Now, there is no other theoretical explanation in the world that does
not hold up except mine, so all the others have no chance of being true.
If it is already false on paper, it is necessarily even more false on
the
ground.
But talking is no use to me, even if I have the theoretical proof.
Experimental proof is needed.
A good experimental proof would consist of testing the validity of: Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax)]^-(1/2) which gives a much lower instantaneous
observable speed, significantly much lower than the instantaneous speeds predicted by physicists during particle accelerations.
It is clear that if we know the acceleration with certainty, the mass of
the particle, as well as the energy or momentum of the particle at this instant, we can easily deduce Voi (instantaneous observable speed).
And see that my equation is correct.
Now, I have doubts about the feasibility of the experiment with regard
to acceleration: how can I be sure that it is indeed the acceleration of
the > particle that is taken into account, and not the acceleration
measured in the laboratory?
I repeat it tirelessly, SR is very simple, much simpler than we teach
it. But it's full of little traps.
R.H.
Speaking of SR, I've found that to be true in only two cases: whenIt's very strange.
gravity
is significant and when dealing with faster-than-light (FTL) phenomena.I notice
that the notion of anisochrony, although simple, that I proposed forty years ago
now to try to rectify things that did not seem clear to me, remains invariably
misunderstood by men.
It's okay to assume the acceleration and the mass, then use the correct equations for E and p.
There is a known relationship between the two.
Le 15/07/2024 à 23:54, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Speaking of SR, I've found that to be true in only two cases: when
gravity is significant and when dealing with faster-than-light (FTL) phenomena.
I notice that the notion of anisochrony, although simple, that I
proposed forty years ago now to try to rectify things that did not
seem clear to me, remains invariably misunderstood by men.
It's very strange.
But you're talking about the speed of light.
I wrote at the time (1986): "there will therefore be an impassable
observable speed, which will extend to all particles and all the laws of physics".
I am surprised that 40 years later, we are still talking about tachyons,
or whatever. The day you are told: "That's it, we have found a
superluminal particle, invariably answer: then the experimenter was absolutely wrong".
Some people think that the limit on the speed of light comes from a
technical problem, and that, with better technology, we might one day be
able to find something that will exceed this speed, like in science
fiction films. .
This is not a technical problem, but a problem of absurdity.
As if one were saying to a man: “Draw me a round square, give me a
scarlet white paint, pour me a glass of dehydrated water”.
Exceeding the speed of light isn't impossible, it's just absurd. A bit
like asking a man to search for a whole number between 5 and 6 for 1000 years. He will never succeed because it is absurd and contradictory.
For a particle to exceed the speed of light, it would have to exceed an infinitely fast real speed, which is absurd.
The equation which compresses the speed values to c, comes from the fact that the notion of universal simultaneity (notion of universal
present time) is an abstract idea, very anchored in man, but which nevertheless remains totally abstract from our universe. It's not made
like that.
We will therefore have two fundamental equations, one of which is the reciprocal of the other.
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Thus, it will be possible to give to a mobile, a law, a particle all the
real speeds imaginable in a given frame of reference.
But you will never be able to measure it, observe it, faster than c.
It is a property of space and time that gives this.
Because the notion of general and reciprocal simultaneity simply does
not exist, and we must take into account the temporal shifts which
exist,
naturally, between any two points in space.
In short, the “plan of present time” does not exist. Each entity in
the universe creates its own.
Going from A to B, even infinitely quickly (we put a small watch on the particle) will always take an incompressible amount of time for the
examiner placed stationary in this frame of reference.
And c can never be logically exceeded IN this frame of reference, even
if the particle, like the photon, moves instantly from there to there.
R.H.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:30:10 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Thank you for your response, to which I would add two clarifications:
During the Gran Sasso group experiment and the fantastic revelations of supramumin neutrinos, I immediately warned that the examiners must have
been wrong.
Proof that I hold my theoretical positions very firmly, where
others were ready to abandon one of the essential pillars of the SR.
I repeat: “There will therefore be an OBSERVABLE speed limit which will extend to all particles and all the laws of physics”.
In a thousand years, or in a hundred thousand years, we will still say
the same thing,
like we will say that it is impossible to find a natural
number between five and six.
Secondly, I would like to come back to the supernovae of 1987, which
posed a small problem of understanding, and it was said: "The neutrinos arrived six hours before the photons, and therefore they were faster
than the light."
Another proposition was made, in my opinion completely false, "it is
because the neutrinos left the heart of the star, and the light took
longer to leave the surface".
I think a third explanation could be valid, and since I like to play, I
won't tell you, but I'll give you some biscuits.
What if it was the neutrinos that moved at the speed of light and not
the light?
What if, sometimes, like in air, the speed of light was slowed down in
space? Are there not, in the immense space existing between the earth
and the supernovae, a few gas molecules capable of slowing down light,
while neutrinos have an instantaneous transfer, that is to say an
observable speed? What does the light not have in this case?
Do you understand my argument?
R.H.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. What needs to be understood is
just how many molecules make up the normal matter around us (think
Avogadro's number). Interstellar space contains between 20 and 50
hydrogen atoms per cubic cm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
Half of the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud is outside our
galaxy,
so the density is even lower. At 50/cm3, the entire 168,000 light years amounts to only a two meter thickness of hydrogen at STP! So I'm afraid
the astrophysicists cannot use that to save their precious
speed-of-light
skins.
"Why is the speed of light so slow when the universe is such a really,
really big place?" -- G. L. Harnagel
Am Dienstag000016, 16.07.2024 um 16:47 schrieb gharnagel:
"Why is the speed of light so slow when the universe is such a really, really big place?" -- G. L. Harnagel
This is a tautology:
What we see in the night sky is actually our own past light-cone.
This means: light is relatively slow for the wastness of the universe,
hence we can see everything only with a certain delay and the further
away, the longer the delay, according to x = c* t
(with x= distance in meters, t = delay in seconds).
This 'longer away' is usually measured in light years and the delay in
years.
Since the night sky shows only a delayed image of past events, the speed
of light cancels out of the equations and we can put any value into it
and always get a valid picture of the universe.
So we only assume, that light moves always with ~300 million meters per second through the entire universe.
But if light would speed up or slow down, we would not be able to
measure this, because we always see the own light cone in the night sky
and c is already embedded into it (for whatever a value c actually has
in outer space).
TH
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 7:05:15 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000016, 16.07.2024 um 16:47 schrieb gharnagel:
"Why is the speed of light so slow when the universe is such a really,
really big place?" -- G. L. Harnagel
This is a tautology:
What we see in the night sky is actually our own past light-cone.
Ah, but if we can develop tachyon astronomy, that will not be true!
This means: light is relatively slow for the wastness of the universe,
hence we can see everything only with a certain delay and the further
away, the longer the delay, according to x = c* t
(with x= distance in meters, t = delay in seconds).
This 'longer away' is usually measured in light years and the delay in
years.
Since the night sky shows only a delayed image of past events, the speed
of light cancels out of the equations and we can put any value into it
and always get a valid picture of the universe.
So we only assume, that light moves always with ~300 million meters per
second through the entire universe.
But if light would speed up or slow down, we would not be able to
measure this, because we always see the own light cone in the night sky
and c is already embedded into it (for whatever a value c actually has
in outer space).
TH
Ah, but the fine structure constant, which is pertinent to how stars
shine,
includes the speed of light. That implies that c is the same throughout space and time, n'est-ce pas?
c is a constant, poor halfbrain. Of course it
is the same. As for the speed of light - even
your idiot guru was unable to stick to such
an absurd for a long time, and his GR shit
had to abandon it
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:16:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
c is a constant, poor halfbrain. Of course it
is the same. As for the speed of light - even
your idiot guru was unable to stick to such
an absurd for a long time, and his GR shit
had to abandon it
Wozzie is lying again. The speed of light is locally
equal to c.
W dniu 17.07.2024 o 22:26, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie is lying again. The speed of light is locally
equal to c.
Well, Harrie, do you see any difference between
the claim "speed of light is always equal to
c" and the claim "speed of light is always locally
equal to c"?
I think you do see some difference. You're an idiot,
sure, but you're not THAT stupid. You're just a
piece of fanatic, lying piece of shit instead.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:34:12 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.07.2024 o 22:26, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie is lying again. The speed of light is locally
equal to c.
Well, Harrie, do you see any difference between
the claim "speed of light is always equal to
c" and the claim "speed of light is always locally
equal to c"?
Yes, I do. Wozzie-liar is the one who can't. He
thinks that science once stated can't change.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 7:05:15 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000016, 16.07.2024 um 16:47 schrieb gharnagel:
"Why is the speed of light so slow when the universe is such a really,
really big place?" -- G. L. Harnagel
This is a tautology:
What we see in the night sky is actually our own past light-cone.
Ah, but if we can develop tachyon astronomy, that will not be true!
This means: light is relatively slow for the wastness of the universe,
hence we can see everything only with a certain delay and the further
away, the longer the delay, according to x = c* t
(with x= distance in meters, t = delay in seconds).
This 'longer away' is usually measured in light years and the delay in
years.
Since the night sky shows only a delayed image of past events, the speed
of light cancels out of the equations and we can put any value into it
and always get a valid picture of the universe.
So we only assume, that light moves always with ~300 million meters per
second through the entire universe.
But if light would speed up or slow down, we would not be able to
measure this, because we always see the own light cone in the night sky
and c is already embedded into it (for whatever a value c actually has
in outer space).
TH
Ah, but the fine structure constant, which is pertinent to how stars
shine,
includes the speed of light. That implies that c is the same throughout space and time, n'est-ce pas?
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:05 schrieb gharnagel:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 7:05:15 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
What we see in the night sky is actually our own past light-cone.
Ah, but if we can develop tachyon astronomy, that will not be true!
Well, if light would speed up somehow in remote corners of the universe,
we would still see what we see in the night sky, if this phenomenon
would not change in observable timespans.
Possibly there are tachyons, but those are invisible anyhow, because we
can see only light and light moves with light speed and tachyons don't.
universe,This means: light is relatively slow for the wastness of the
furtherhence we can see everything only with a certain delay and the
away, the longer the delay, according to x = c* t
(with x= distance in meters, t = delay in seconds).
inThis 'longer away' is usually measured in light years and the delay
years.
speedSince the night sky shows only a delayed image of past events, the
itof light cancels out of the equations and we can put any value into
and always get a valid picture of the universe.
perSo we only assume, that light moves always with ~300 million meters
second through the entire universe.
skyBut if light would speed up or slow down, we would not be able to
measure this, because we always see the own light cone in the night
hasand c is already embedded into it (for whatever a value c actually
in outer space).
TH
Ah, but the fine structure constant, which is pertinent to how stars
shine, includes the speed of light. That implies that c is the same throughout space and time, n'est-ce pas?
Well possibly.
What I wanted to say is this:
what we see in the night sky is light, that stems from remote places in
the universe.
Since light is very fast, but space is also very large, we have a
significant delay for the travel from such remote place to us observers.
This makes the image we see a little unreal, because it is not only old,
but also 'layered in time'.
To untangle this picture and create kind of realistic picture of the universe, we would need the distance to those remote places.
Since we only have light to see, we can assume c=~ 300 million meters/s
as light speed.
But what if that is not always the case???
Could we somehow find out??
No, since c is already used to determine the distance to these events.
If now c alters mysteriously along the path, we had to determine the
distance by other means (which we do not have), hence cannot measure,
whether or not c stays always the same.
TH
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 6:33:27 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:05 schrieb gharnagel:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 7:05:15 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
What we see in the night sky is actually our own past light-cone.
Ah, but if we can develop tachyon astronomy, that will not be true!
Well, if light would speed up somehow in remote corners of the universe,
we would still see what we see in the night sky, if this phenomenon
would not change in observable timespans.
Possibly there are tachyons, but those are invisible anyhow, because we
can see only light and light moves with light speed and tachyons don't.
"See" is an interesting verb and "light" is an interesting noun. We use them to describe situations where we don't actually use the band between
0.7 and 0.4 um. We now can "see" gravitational waves and interstellar neutrinos, as well as IR and UV astronomy thanks to scientific advances. PTOLEMY may expand the field to "relic" neutrinos (which may be
tachyonic).
[snip incoherent babble]
To include non-em waves or other frequencies into cosmology would allow
other intuitions, but that is something, which our mainstream does not
like.
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[snip incoherent babble]allow
To include non-em waves or other frequencies into cosmology would
other intuitions, but that is something, which our mainstream does not like.
You are awfully ignorant of modern cosmology Thomas.
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[snip incoherent babble]
To include non-em waves or other frequencies into cosmology would
allow other intuitions, but that is something, which our mainstream
does not like.
You are awfully ignorant of modern cosmology Thomas.
Beauty is the splendor of truth.
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
W dniu 31.07.2024 o 05:04, Sylvia Else pisze:
On 15-July-24 6:30 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
Beauty is the splendor of truth.
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
And already your notions have gone awry.
Since we have no proof that the laws of physics have to be beautiful,
seeking to impose that notion on the universe risks sending oneself
down a blind alley.
Unfortunately, you're not the only person to have fallen into this
trap. The idea may have derailed fundamental research for decades, and
lead to a strong expectation that super-symmetric particles would be
found by the LHC. Spoiler alert, they weren't.
Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with that
"Fundamental" physics is what You've learnt in
basic school.
What Your insane church is building
now are higher and higher floors of abstracts.
On 15-July-24 6:30 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
Beauty is the splendor of truth.
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
And already your notions have gone awry.
Since we have no proof that the laws of physics have to be beautiful,
seeking to impose that notion on the universe risks sending oneself down
a blind alley.
Unfortunately, you're not the only person to have fallen into this trap.
The idea may have derailed fundamental research for decades, and lead to
a strong expectation that super-symmetric particles would be found by
the LHC. Spoiler alert, they weren't.
Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with that
Le 31/07/2024 à 06:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 31.07.2024 o 05:04, Sylvia Else pisze:
On 15-July-24 6:30 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
Beauty is the splendor of truth.
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
And already your notions have gone awry.
Since we have no proof that the laws of physics have to be beautiful,
seeking to impose that notion on the universe risks sending oneself
down a blind alley.
Unfortunately, you're not the only person to have fallen into this
trap. The idea may have derailed fundamental research for decades,
and lead to a strong expectation that super-symmetric particles would
be found by the LHC. Spoiler alert, they weren't.
Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with that
"Fundamental" physics is what You've learnt in
basic school.
So Newtonian/Galilean/Halmitonial Physics is good to go today.
in a good mood Wozniak I guess.
What Your insane church is building
now are higher and higher floors of abstracts.
Oh, anything build later is bad, "abstract"
On 15-July-24 6:30 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
Beauty is the splendor of truth.
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
And already your notions have gone awry.
Since we have no proof that the laws of physics have to be beautiful,
seeking to impose that notion on the universe risks sending oneself down
a blind alley.
Unfortunately, you're not the only person to have fallen into this trap.
The idea may have derailed fundamental research for decades, and lead to
a strong expectation that super-symmetric particles would be found by
the LHC. Spoiler alert, they weren't.
Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with that.
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
On 15-July-24 6:30 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
Beauty is the splendor of truth.
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
And already your notions have gone awry.
Since we have no proof that the laws of physics have to be beautiful,
seeking to impose that notion on the universe risks sending oneself down
a blind alley.
But in good company.
Unfortunately, you're not the only person to have fallen into this trap.
The idea may have derailed fundamental research for decades, and lead to
a strong expectation that super-symmetric particles would be found by
the LHC. Spoiler alert, they weren't.
Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with that.
And the grapes are sour,
And already your notions have gone awry.
Since we have no proof that the laws of physics have to be beautiful,
seeking to impose that notion on the universe risks sending oneself down
a blind alley.
Unfortunately, you're not the only person to have fallen into this trap.
The idea may have derailed fundamental research for decades, and lead to
a strong expectation that super-symmetric particles would be found by
the LHC. Spoiler alert, they weren't.
Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with that.
Sylvia.
Oh, anything build later is bad, "abstract" (the same word Hachel uses
when he cease to believe he understand something), as an "information engineer" you have issues with abstractions too?
It looks to any sane person (neither you nor Hachel) can recognize that
from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics just ran fine anyway :-)
Le 31/07/2024 à 05:04, Sylvia Else a écrit :
And already your notions have gone awry.
Since we have no proof that the laws of physics have to be beautiful,
seeking to impose that notion on the universe risks sending oneself
down a blind alley.
Unfortunately, you're not the only person to have fallen into this
trap. The idea may have derailed fundamental research for decades, and
lead to a strong expectation that super-symmetric particles would be
found by the LHC. Spoiler alert, they weren't.
Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with that.
Sylvia.
"Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with that". Sylvia.
You said "perhaps".
I conclude that you are not 100% sure of your move.
R.H.
W dniu 18.07.2024 o 04:10, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:34:12 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.07.2024 o 22:26, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie is lying again. The speed of light is locally
equal to c.
Well, Harrie, do you see any difference between
the claim "speed of light is always equal to
c" and the claim "speed of light is always locally
equal to c"?
Yes, I do. Wozzie-liar is the one who can't. He
thinks that science once stated can't change.
Do I? Didn't I explain you and your fellow idiots
that even your idiot guru was unable to stick to
his "costant speed of light" absurd for a long time
and his GR shit had to abandon it?
On 31-July-24 10:30 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
"Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with that". >> Sylvia.
You said "perhaps".
I conclude that you are not 100% sure of your move.
R.H.
I'm 100% sure we don't have a proof that it's not ugly.
Sylvia.
On 31-July-24 10:30 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 31/07/2024 à 05:04, Sylvia Else a écrit :
And already your notions have gone awry.
Since we have no proof that the laws of physics have to be beautiful,
seeking to impose that notion on the universe risks sending oneself
down a blind alley.
Unfortunately, you're not the only person to have fallen into this
trap. The idea may have derailed fundamental research for decades,
and lead to a strong expectation that super-symmetric particles would
be found by the LHC. Spoiler alert, they weren't.
Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with
that.
Sylvia.
"Perhaps fundamental physics is ugly. If it is, we have to live with
that".
Sylvia.
You said "perhaps".
I conclude that you are not 100% sure of your move.
R.H.
I'm 100% sure we don't have a proof that it's not ugly.
You are awfully ignorant of modern cosmology Thomas.Well, I had the idea, that the Doppler effect at v>c could make things disappear, because redshift beyond zero Hz would create 'invisible rays'.
These 'invisible things' (emitting invisble rays) could be real, well
and alive, but in a different realm, into which we cannot see.
That would match the discription of a 'black hole', because things get
sucked in and never return.
If now that 'black hole' is 'relative', we could imagine to be there and observe our Earth from there.
In this case the black hole would be here, because Earth had vanished
from the sight you would have from that remote location.
You could treat this phenomenon also as 'rotation of the axis of time':
if time is a local phenomenon, the remote location had its own axis of
time and we on Earth have our own time, too.
Now these axes have an angle towards each other.
And because c could be represented by the angle 45° in a spacetime
diagramm, we could imagine a realm, which exeeds this angle (at least a little).
This would be a 'black hole' because the local time there drags
everything with it, hence nothing can return from there.
See from the other side, this black hole would be a 'white hole' and the
same thing, that we usually call 'big bang'.
I'm not sure that everything went so well.
It started with the equations of H.A. Lorentz, real complex and wrong
blocks to find the right transformations.
If Poincaré, the greatest mathematician in the world in 1905, who was
not Breton, HIM, had not helped him, he would still be there.
When the RR came out, 100 scientists proposed a manifesto, arguing that
it was not all clear, and that there was obvious bullshit, and poorly explained. In particular the Langevin paradox which has NEVER been
correctly explained, except by Richard Hachel and more than a hundred
years after Poincaré.
And today, while I propose a new approach to the problem, men spit in my
face more than they themselves know how to explain a small Poincaré transformation with a small numerical example.
It is absolutely fantastic to weigh human stupidity with a good scale.
Simple example, you, O Moron who shows off to me, but you are not even capable of understanding what an apparent speed is in astrophysics, and
I had to explain to you for three months, why we could set Vapp = Vo /
(1 + cosµ.Vo / c).
And I will have to spend twenty years (but I would be dead before), to explain to you a small TL: a star has just collapsed on itself over
there 15,000 light years away. I start my stopwatch in front of the
celestial event that I SEE. A rocket that is crossing the solar system
at that moment also sees it (tautology).
Assuming that I set (x,y,z,To,t) in Hachel notation, without even
needing to explain, it is so obvious, if I write
E=(12000,9000,0,-15000,0) for me.
What will he, the rocket commander, have to write?
E=( )
But you're not even capable, hey, buffoon!
What are you coming to annoy Sylvia and Maciej?
The worst, if it turns out Sylvia, who is a woman will answer better
than you.
You should be ashamed.
No, no, my dear, it didn't go "that well".
Den 31.07.2024 17:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
I'm not sure that everything went so well.
It started with the equations of H.A. Lorentz, real complex and wrong
blocks to find the right transformations.
If Poincaré, the greatest mathematician in the world in 1905, who was
not Breton, HIM, had not helped him, he would still be there.
When the RR came out, 100 scientists proposed a manifesto, arguing
that it was not all clear, and that there was obvious bullshit, and
poorly explained. In particular the Langevin paradox which has NEVER
been correctly explained, except by Richard Hachel and more than a
hundred years after Poincaré.
Since you mention the Langevin paradox:
I have a version of said paradox which is a bit more down to Earth
than your examples use to be. I suppose your theory is valid in the real world, so I would like you to give the correct explanation of
the version of Langevin paradox below:
The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on
the equator. They all have an atomic clock.
Ginette are always stationary on the Equator.
Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Both are travelling once around Earth at equator.
Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational
blue shift can be ignored.
From the time they are co-located, to they again are colocated
after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that
the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days.
Please find what the duration of the journey will be
measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W.
Some data:
Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km
Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s
Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference
(ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s
SR predicts: τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns, τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns
Den 31.07.2024 17:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
I'm not sure that everything went so well.
It started with the equations of H.A. Lorentz, real complex and wrong
blocks to find the right transformations.
If Poincaré, the greatest mathematician in the world in 1905, who was
not Breton, HIM, had not helped him, he would still be there.
When the RR came out, 100 scientists proposed a manifesto, arguing that
it was not all clear, and that there was obvious bullshit, and poorly
explained. In particular the Langevin paradox which has NEVER been
correctly explained, except by Richard Hachel and more than a hundred
years after Poincaré.
Since you mention the Langevin paradox:
I have a version of said paradox which is a bit more down to Earth
than your examples use to be. I suppose your theory is valid in the real world, so I would like you to give the correct explanation of
the version of Langevin paradox below:
The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on
the equator. They all have an atomic clock.
Ginette are always stationary on the Equator.
Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Both are travelling once around Earth at equator.
Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational
blue shift can be ignored.
From the time they are co-located, to they again are colocated
after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that
the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days.
Please find what the duration of the journey will be
measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W.
Some data:
Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km
Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s
Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference
(ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s
SR predicts: τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns, τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns
But that's not the right answer, is it?
And today, while I propose a new approach to the problem, men spit in my
face more than they themselves know how to explain a small Poincaré
transformation with a small numerical example.
It is absolutely fantastic to weigh human stupidity with a good scale.
Now you have the opportunity to demonstrate your new approach.
Simple example, you, O Moron who shows off to me, but you are not even
capable of understanding what an apparent speed is in astrophysics, and
I had to explain to you for three months, why we could set Vapp = Vo /
(1 + cosµ.Vo / c).
And I will have to spend twenty years (but I would be dead before), to
explain to you a small TL: a star has just collapsed on itself over
there 15,000 light years away. I start my stopwatch in front of the
celestial event that I SEE. A rocket that is crossing the solar system
at that moment also sees it (tautology).
Assuming that I set (x,y,z,To,t) in Hachel notation, without even
needing to explain, it is so obvious, if I write
E=(12000,9000,0,-15000,0) for me.
What will he, the rocket commander, have to write?
E=( )
But you're not even capable, hey, buffoon!
What are you coming to annoy Sylvia and Maciej?
The worst, if it turns out Sylvia, who is a woman will answer better
than you.
You should be ashamed.
No, no, my dear, it didn't go "that well".
What's the point with starting the watch when you SEE the supernova?
What are you trying to measure?
Le 01/08/2024 à 13:39, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
GR will be abandoned, I think, as the biggest mistake of modern physics.
The uninformed opinion of a demented egomaniac country doctor is of no interest.
GR will be abandoned, I think, as the biggest mistake of modern physics.
[snip trumpian whining]
So I understand that one can get upset by believing that one has an easy grip, and to constantly hit the void.
W dniu 01.08.2024 o 14:17, Python pisze:
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Le 01/08/2024 à 15:29, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[snip trumpian whining]
So I understand that one can get upset by believing that one has an
easy grip, and to constantly hit the void.
Your bunch of nonsense has been debunked in details, Lengrand. Face it.
W dniu 01.08.2024 o 15:33, Python pisze:
Le 01/08/2024 à 15:29, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[snip trumpian whining]
So I understand that one can get upset by believing that one has an
easy grip, and to constantly hit the void.
Your bunch of nonsense has been debunked in details, Lengrand. Face it.
And [SR] has been proven inconsistent.
poor stinker.
Le 01/08/2024 à 16:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 01.08.2024 o 15:33, Python pisze:
Le 01/08/2024 à 15:29, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[snip trumpian whining]
So I understand that one can get upset by believing that one has an
easy grip, and to constantly hit the void.
Your bunch of nonsense has been debunked in details, Lengrand. Face it.
And [SR] has been proven inconsistent.
None of your silly arguments makes any sense, especially
W dniu 01.08.2024 o 16:35, Python pisze:
Le 01/08/2024 à 16:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 01.08.2024 o 15:33, Python pisze:
Le 01/08/2024 à 15:29, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :And [SR] has been proven inconsistent.
[snip trumpian whining]
So I understand that one can get upset by believing that one has an
easy grip, and to constantly hit the void.
Your bunch of nonsense has been debunked in details, Lengrand. Face it. >>>
None of your silly arguments makes any sense, especially
[snip idiotic babbling]
Le 01/08/2024 à 16:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 01.08.2024 o 16:35, Python pisze:
Le 01/08/2024 à 16:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 01.08.2024 o 15:33, Python pisze:
Le 01/08/2024 à 15:29, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[snip trumpian whining]
So I understand that one can get upset by believing that one has
an easy grip, and to constantly hit the void.
Your bunch of nonsense has been debunked in details, Lengrand. Face
it.
And [SR] has been proven inconsistent.
None of your silly arguments makes any sense, especially
[snip idiotic babbling]
BTW, how come you've *never* convinced *anyone* during
all these years of posting your crap. Not even a single
Relativity denier?
Le 01/08/2024 13:39, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a crit:
GR will be abandoned, I think, as the biggest mistake of modern physics.
The uninformed opinion of a demented egomaniac country doctor is of no interest.
So yes, your "theory" is "void", completely absurd stupid "void".
On 2024-08-01 12:17:54 +0000, Python said:
The uninformed opinion of a demented egomaniac country doctor is of no
interest.
You mentioned the other day that "Dr" Hachel had been spouting his ill-informed claptrap at fr.sci.physique for 30 years. So I had a look
there and saw that we are lucky at sci.physics.relativity, as we get
off fairly lightly.
Le 01/08/2024 à 11:32, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 31.07.2024 17:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
In particular the Langevin paradox which has NEVER
been correctly explained, except by Richard Hachel and more than a
hundred years after Poincaré.
Since you mention the Langevin paradox:
I have a version of said paradox which is a bit more down to Earth
than your examples use to be. I suppose your theory is valid in the real
world, so I would like you to give the correct explanation of
the version of Langevin paradox below:
The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on
the equator. They all have an atomic clock.
Ginette are always stationary on the Equator.
Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Both are travelling once around Earth at equator.
Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational
blue shift can be ignored.
From the time they are co-located, to they again are colocated
after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that
the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days.
Please find what the duration of the journey will be
measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W.
For now, it is clear that we should not talk about such complex things.
I think that we will be able to do it later when HR is accepted, but not before.
I sincerely think that we will find exactly the experimental results but without going through GR.
We will explain them only with SR.
GR will be abandoned, I think, as the biggest mistake of modern physics.
Some data:
Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km
Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s
Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference
(ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s
SR predicts: τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns, τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns
But that's not the right answer, is it?
The event that occurred at the supernova located at 15,000 ly has just
been recorded by the Earth observer.
He notes E = (x, y, z, To, t)
Let x = 12000, y = 9000, z = 0, To = -15000, t = 0.
This is how I write in Hachel notation.
An observer crosses the Earth at this moment at a few thousand
kilometers, his speed is 0.8c (his rocket has very advanced technology,
and he is heading on the Ox axis).
It is clear, at the risk of being absurd, and of not having understood anything at all about the theory of relativity that the events will be simultaneous for the two observers who will be conjoined at this moment.
Their watch will mark t = 0 (since they are triggered at this moment).
We want to know what the coordinates of the supernova event will be in
the new reference frame of the rocket, and what the commander will write
on his on-board carent.
Let E'=(x,y,z,To,0) since not yet knowing the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, we can only guess the other four coordinates.
But you, Paul, who knows the TL and who knows a little about SR, can you
give the five new coordinates in RH mode?
Don't be afraid to make mistakes, we are here to learn and understand,
and even if you make a mistake, it will allow us to go further.
If you don't make a mistake, it's because you have already understood
this point perfectly.
Den 01.08.2024 13:39, skrev Richard Hachel:
The event that occurred at the supernova located at 15,000 ly has just
been recorded by the Earth observer.
He notes E = (x, y, z, To, t)
Let x = 12000, y = 9000, z = 0, To = -15000, t = 0.
This is how I write in Hachel notation.
A very stupid notation!
Giving the position of a star in Cartesian coordinates
Richard, you pride yourself of being the only person who has ever
correctly explained the Langevin paradox, but when I ask you to explain
a very simple example of said paradox, you chicken out!
One stationary clock on Earth, and two aeroplanes flying at
very low altitude in opposite directions around the Earth,
could it be simpler?
So far I have several times seen you claim to have
correctly explained the Langevin paradox, but I have
never seen you do it.
Should I be impressed?
Den 01.08.2024 13:39, skrev Richard Hachel:
The event that occurred at the supernova located at 15,000 ly has just
been recorded by the Earth observer.
He notes E = (x, y, z, To, t)
Let x = 12000, y = 9000, z = 0, To = -15000, t = 0.
This is how I write in Hachel notation.
A very stupid notation!
Giving the position of a star in Cartesian coordinates
would obviously include the distance to the star, and then
in addition giving the distance to the star in light years
or years is redundant.
Astronomers give the position to the star as an angle
in a spherical coordinate system. The angle is given as
observed from the Sun.
The distance is given in parsecs (or ly) and will be determined
by parallax or other method.
The Earth is orbiting the Sun, which will mean that
an observer on the Earth will see the direction to
the star varying during the year. The star will appear
to move along an ellipse with major axis 40.98 arcsecs.
The direction to the star observed from the Sun will be in
the centre of the ellipse.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
An observer crosses the Earth at this moment at a few thousand
kilometers, his speed is 0.8c (his rocket has very advanced technology,
and he is heading on the Ox axis).
Along the x-axis?
So his velocity is 37⁰ from the direction to the star.
It is clear, at the risk of being absurd, and of not having understood
anything at all about the theory of relativity that the events will be
simultaneous for the two observers who will be conjoined at this moment.
Their watch will mark t = 0 (since they are triggered at this moment).
We want to know what the coordinates of the supernova event will be in
the new reference frame of the rocket, and what the commander will write
on his on-board carent.
Due to aberration he will see the supernova in a very
different direction than the person on Earth.
https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf
equation (19)
The rocket will see the supernova
an angle 12.7⁰ from the x-axis.
Let E'=(x,y,z,To,0) since not yet knowing the Poincaré-Lorentz
transformations, we can only guess the other four coordinates.
But you, Paul, who knows the TL and who knows a little about SR, can you
give the five new coordinates in RH mode?
The aberration above is from the LT.
It is obviously meaningless to transform the distance,
there is no way the rocket man can measure it.
It is measured by other means.
Don't be afraid to make mistakes, we are here to learn and understand,
and even if you make a mistake, it will allow us to go further.
If you don't make a mistake, it's because you have already understood
this point perfectly.
Did you have a point?
Czrtesian coordinates? Yet another
common sense prejudice refuted by your
idiot guru.
Le 01/08/2024 à 22:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
Czrtesian coordinates? Yet another
common sense prejudice refuted by your
idiot guru.
Tak, to zwykły zdrowy rozsądek i w tym właśnie widzimy wszystkie szkody, jakie wyrządza teoria względności wymyślona przez Einsteina i Minkowskiego, dwóch Niemców, którzy lepiej zrobiliby, gdyby zostali w łóżku.
W końcu nie rozumiemy już, o czym mówimy, nawet jeśli to, co
proponujemy, jest bardzo proste.
Pomysł jest tutaj bardzo prosty.
Supernowa wybucha w odległości 15 000 lat świetlnych od nas, w pozycjach x=12 000, y=9 000, z=0, To=-15 000 lat (znak minus oznacza, że miała to miejsce -15 000 lat temu według czasu lokalnego), t=0 to moment, w którym fakt ten zaobserwuje obserwator na swoim zegarku.
To nie jest trudne.
Problem w tym, że wiele osób, w tym skinker Python, robi wszystko, aby zrujnować dyskusję.
E=(x,y,z,To,t)
E=(12000,9000,0,-15000,0)
Czy możesz mi podać E' dla dowódcy rakiety i pokazać, że nie tylko
Le 31/07/2024 à 07:03, Python a écrit :
Oh, anything build later is bad, "abstract" (the same word Hachel uses
when he cease to believe he understand something), as an "information
engineer" you have issues with abstractions too?
It looks to any sane person (neither you nor Hachel) can recognize that
from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics just ran fine
anyway :-)
I'm not sure that everything went so well.
It started with the equations of H.A. Lorentz, real complex and wrong
blocks to find the right transformations.
If Poincaré, the greatest mathematician in the world in 1905, who was
not Breton, HIM, had not helped him, he would still be there.
When the RR came out, 100 scientists proposed a manifesto, arguing that
it was not all clear, and that there was obvious bullshit, and poorly explained.
Le 01/08/2024 à 11:32, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 31.07.2024 17:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
I'm not sure that everything went so well.
It started with the equations of H.A. Lorentz, real complex and wrong
blocks to find the right transformations.
If Poincaré, the greatest mathematician in the world in 1905, who was
not Breton, HIM, had not helped him, he would still be there.
When the RR came out, 100 scientists proposed a manifesto, arguing that
it was not all clear, and that there was obvious bullshit, and poorly
explained. In particular the Langevin paradox which has NEVER been
correctly explained, except by Richard Hachel and more than a hundred
years after Poincaré.
Since you mention the Langevin paradox:
I have a version of said paradox which is a bit more down to Earth
than your examples use to be. I suppose your theory is valid in the real
world, so I would like you to give the correct explanation of
the version of Langevin paradox below:
The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on
the equator. They all have an atomic clock.
Ginette are always stationary on the Equator.
Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Both are travelling once around Earth at equator.
Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational
blue shift can be ignored.
From the time they are co-located, to they again are colocated
after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that
the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days.
Please find what the duration of the journey will be
measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W.
For now, it is clear that we should not talk about such complex things.
I think that we will be able to do it later when HR is accepted, but
not before.
I sincerely think that we will find exactly the experimental results
but without going through GR.
On 2024-08-01 11:39:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 01/08/2024 à 11:32, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 31.07.2024 17:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
I'm not sure that everything went so well.
It started with the equations of H.A. Lorentz, real complex and
wrong blocks to find the right transformations.
If Poincaré, the greatest mathematician in the world in 1905, who
was not Breton, HIM, had not helped him, he would still be there.
When the RR came out, 100 scientists proposed a manifesto, arguing
that it was not all clear, and that there was obvious bullshit, and
poorly explained. In particular the Langevin paradox which has NEVER
been correctly explained, except by Richard Hachel and more than a
hundred years after Poincaré.
Since you mention the Langevin paradox:
I have a version of said paradox which is a bit more down to Earth
than your examples use to be. I suppose your theory is valid in the real >>> world, so I would like you to give the correct explanation of
the version of Langevin paradox below:
The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on
the equator. They all have an atomic clock.
Ginette are always stationary on the Equator.
Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Both are travelling once around Earth at equator.
Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational
blue shift can be ignored.
From the time they are co-located, to they again are colocated
after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that
the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days.
Please find what the duration of the journey will be
measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W.
For now, it is clear that we should not talk about such complex things.
I circle is the least complex way to go where you already were.
I think that we will be able to do it later when HR is accepted, but
not before.
I sincerely think that we will find exactly the experimental results
but without going through GR.
In the particular example one does not need GR. But there are very simple situations that are hard to explain otherwise. For exmple: put two clocks side by side on the floor and synchronize them. Then lift one of them and
put it on the table. Next day lift the other one and put it to the table
next to the first one. Record the difference in displayed times.
W dniu 02.08.2024 o 11:12, Mikko pisze:
In the particular example one does not need GR. But there are verytable
simple
situations that are hard to explain otherwise. For exmple: put two
clocks
side by side on the floor and synchronize them. Then lift one of them
and
put it on the table. Next day lift the other one and put it to the
next to the first one. Record the difference in displayed times.
Having GPS, of course, we can be absolutely
sure that your moronic scenarios have nothing
in common with real clocks, real observations
or real whatever.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 9:46:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 02.08.2024 o 11:12, Mikko pisze:
table
In the particular example one does not need GR. But there are very
simple
situations that are hard to explain otherwise. For exmple: put two
clocks
side by side on the floor and synchronize them. Then lift one of them
and
put it on the table. Next day lift the other one and put it to the
next to the first one. Record the difference in displayed times.
Having GPS, of course, we can be absolutely
sure that your moronic scenarios have nothing
in common with real clocks, real observations
or real whatever.
Says the duplicitous disingenuous disinformation engineer :-))
W dniu 02.08.2024 o 15:06, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 9:46:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Having GPS, of course, we can be absolutely
sure that your moronic scenarios have nothing
in common with real clocks, real observations
or real whatever.
Says the duplicitous disingenuous disinformation engineer :-))
See, poor halfbrain - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent,
apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, together with your fellow idiots.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:15:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 02.08.2024 o 15:06, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 9:46:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Having GPS, of course, we can be absolutely
sure that your moronic scenarios have nothing
in common with real clocks, real observations
or real whatever.
Says the duplicitous disingenuous disinformation engineer :-))
See, poor halfbrain - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent,
And he only proves himself to be delusional also.
apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, together with your fellow idiots.
And he projects his spitting, insulting and lying on everyone
else. He's a psychological basket case.
W dniu 02.08.2024 o 20:00, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:15:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, together with your fellow idiots.
And he projects his spitting, insulting and lying on everyone
else. He's a psychological basket case.
See, poor halfbrain - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent,
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:33:45 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 02.08.2024 o 20:00, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:15:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, together with your fellow idiots.
And he projects his spitting, insulting and lying on everyone
else. He's a psychological basket case.
See, poor halfbrain - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent,
See? Wozzie-boy just repeats his idiotic mumbling and projects
his psychological short-comings on others because he refuses
to take responsibility for his behavior, which is juvenile.
Le 01/08/2024 à 22:05, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 01.08.2024 13:39, skrev Richard Hachel:
The event that occurred at the supernova located at 15,000 ly has
just been recorded by the Earth observer.
He notes E = (x, y, z, To, t)
Let x = 12000, y = 9000, z = 0, To = -15000, t = 0.
This is how I write in Hachel notation.
A very stupid notation!
Giving the position of a star in Cartesian coordinates
would obviously include the distance to the star, and then
in addition giving the distance to the star in light years
or years is redundant.
Astronomers give the position to the star as an angle
in a spherical coordinate system. The angle is given as
observed from the Sun.
The distance is given in parsecs (or ly) and will be determined
by parallax or other method.
The Earth is orbiting the Sun, which will mean that
an observer on the Earth will see the direction to
the star varying during the year. The star will appear
to move along an ellipse with major axis 40.98 arcsecs.
The direction to the star observed from the Sun will be in
the centre of the ellipse.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
An observer crosses the Earth at this moment at a few thousand
kilometers, his speed is 0.8c (his rocket has very advanced
technology, and he is heading on the Ox axis).
Along the x-axis?
So his velocity is 37⁰ from the direction to the star.
It is clear, at the risk of being absurd, and of not having
understood anything at all about the theory of relativity that the
events will be simultaneous for the two observers who will be
conjoined at this moment.
Their watch will mark t = 0 (since they are triggered at this moment).
We want to know what the coordinates of the supernova event will be
in the new reference frame of the rocket, and what the commander will
write on his on-board carent.
Due to aberration he will see the supernova in a very
different direction than the person on Earth.
https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf
equation (19)
The rocket will see the supernova
an angle 12.7⁰ from the x-axis.
Let E'=(x,y,z,To,0) since not yet knowing the Poincaré-Lorentz
transformations, we can only guess the other four coordinates.
But you, Paul, who knows the TL and who knows a little about SR, can
you give the five new coordinates in RH mode?
The aberration above is from the LT.
It is obviously meaningless to transform the distance,
there is no way the rocket man can measure it.
It is measured by other means.
Don't be afraid to make mistakes, we are here to learn and
understand, and even if you make a mistake, it will allow us to go
further.
If you don't make a mistake, it's because you have already understood
this point perfectly.
Did you have a point?
We don't care.
I give this notation because it is the best.
Afterwards, everyone can take their own.
I note a simple event E at a time t=0.
At this time, a rocket crosses me.
We call this a joint event.
The two observers are therefore at the place and time A=(0,0,0,0,0).
It is very simple.
x,y,z, are the metric coordinates.
To is the time when the phenomenon occurred in referential measurement.
t is the time when the phenomenon actually, and live, occurred (which is
a bit disconcerting, I admit, if we refuse universal anisochrony). It is obviously, if we understand correctly, the time at which the phenomenon
is perceived (live-direct at Hachel).
This notation, I repeat, seems to me to be the best, although it
requires a compromise to accept it.
If I write x = 12000, y = 9000, z = 0, To = -15000, t = 0. I have all
the necessary coordinates for the observer in the rocket.
The transformations necessary to find the five coordinates for the guy
in the rocket, it's up to you to give them to me. It's very easy.
I
would like you to give them to me to show me (even if you don't believe
it) that you have perfectly understood how I reason, and what I'm
talking about. The first three coordinates are in ly, it's a metric
unit. The other two in years, these are two time units.
Be careful, I gave To = -15000 years.
This means that in reference time, this happened already 15000 years ago.
I gave t = 0. This is the time coordinate of the image reception (in
live reception, this is what is a bit strange to understand, and why To
is different from t in Hachel due to the geometry used).
There you go, do a little test and try to give me E'=(x',y',z',To',t').
Don't be afraid to make a mistake, it doesn't matter if you make a mistake.
I just want to know if you understand my notation, and my relativistic geometry because it is the basis of the reasoning.
R.H.
Den 01.08.2024 23:03, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 01/08/2024 à 22:05, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 01.08.2024 13:39, skrev Richard Hachel:
The event that occurred at the supernova located at 15,000 ly has
just been recorded by the Earth observer.
He notes E = (x, y, z, To, t)
Let x = 12000, y = 9000, z = 0, To = -15000, t = 0.
This is how I write in Hachel notation.
A very stupid notation!
Giving the position of a star in Cartesian coordinates
would obviously include the distance to the star, and then
in addition giving the distance to the star in light years
or years is redundant.
Astronomers give the position to the star as an angle
in a spherical coordinate system. The angle is given as
observed from the Sun.
The distance is given in parsecs (or ly) and will be determined
by parallax or other method.
The Earth is orbiting the Sun, which will mean that
an observer on the Earth will see the direction to
the star varying during the year. The star will appear
to move along an ellipse with major axis 40.98 arcsecs.
The direction to the star observed from the Sun will be in
the centre of the ellipse.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
An observer crosses the Earth at this moment at a few thousand
kilometers, his speed is 0.8c (his rocket has very advanced
technology, and he is heading on the Ox axis).
Along the x-axis?
So his velocity is 37⁰ from the direction to the star.
It is clear, at the risk of being absurd, and of not having
understood anything at all about the theory of relativity that the
events will be simultaneous for the two observers who will be
conjoined at this moment.
Their watch will mark t = 0 (since they are triggered at this moment). >>>>
We want to know what the coordinates of the supernova event will be
in the new reference frame of the rocket, and what the commander
will write on his on-board carent.
Due to aberration he will see the supernova in a very
different direction than the person on Earth.
https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf
equation (19)
The rocket will see the supernova
an angle 12.7⁰ from the x-axis.
Let E'=(x,y,z,To,0) since not yet knowing the Poincaré-Lorentz
transformations, we can only guess the other four coordinates.
But you, Paul, who knows the TL and who knows a little about SR, can
you give the five new coordinates in RH mode?
The aberration above is from the LT.
It is obviously meaningless to transform the distance,
there is no way the rocket man can measure it.
It is measured by other means.
Don't be afraid to make mistakes, we are here to learn and
understand, and even if you make a mistake, it will allow us to go
further.
If you don't make a mistake, it's because you have already
understood this point perfectly.
Did you have a point?
We don't care.
I give this notation because it is the best.
It isn't so different from what astronomers use.
The position of the star is given as two angles and a distance.
Den 01.08.2024 23:03, skrev Richard Hachel:
I give this notation because it is the best.
It isn't so different from what astronomers use.
The position of the star is given as two angles and a distance.
The angles are Right ascension (RA) and Declination(DEC).
The former is equivalent to longitude and the latter to latitude.
The distance is given in Parsecs or light years.
It is of course a trivial matter to convert these three coordinates
to a Cartesian frame of reference.
Your system have the transit time of the light from the star
as a fourth coordinate, which is redundant because it is given
by the distance.
I didn't fail to notice that your √(x² + y² + z²) = -To⋅c.
So you could remove the To from your system.
When it comes to the time of the observation t, it would be
very inconvenient if the stars in the star catalogues were
observed at different times given in the catalogue, so the
data are given as they would be at the same time.
The current standard is Epoch J2000 (January 1, 2000)
That means that if a star is observed at another time,
the data must be calculated to what they were at Epoch J2000.
(The angular and radial velocity will normally be known).
Now to the real reason why this system is better than yours.
When you know the RA and DEC of the star, you know where
to point the telescope! (Corrected for stellar aberration and parallax.)
You can now buy amateur telescopes where you can enter the RA and DEC
of an astronomical object, and the computer will know where to point
the telescope on a rotating Earth, and even track the object.
You do not have to know the distance.
And when you observe a star, the direction of your telescope
give you the RA and DEC.
No. To is a distance.
The distance to the star is usually measured by parallax.
There is no other way to determine To than to set To = -d/c
That you change the unit from ly to y doesn't change the fact
that -To⋅c = √(x² + y² + z²). To is redundant.
Le 01/08/2024 à 20:04, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Richard, you pride yourself of being the only person who has ever
correctly explained the Langevin paradox, but when I ask you to explain
a very simple example of said paradox, you chicken out!
One stationary clock on Earth, and two aeroplanes flying at
very low altitude in opposite directions around the Earth,
could it be simpler?
I will answer you obviously, but not now, because the answer is too complicated, and you risk forfeiting a fight that you could win.
We must go more slowly and talk about the Langevin first, because the
punch in the face is already quite colossal.
In your example, it is true that it is very simple in appearance and we
say to ourselves what could be simpler, one remains on the ground, the
others turn in different directions but at the same speed.
However, in the frame of reference of airplanes, it is the earth that
turns around them, and the subject remaining on the earth does not
describe a circle, but a very complex ovoid.
I prefer not to take this example, at least for the moment, and not
until you have had all the insights that I have had for 40 years.
R.H.
Den 01.08.2024 23:03, skrev Richard Hachel:
The rocket will see the supernova
an angle 12.7⁰ from the x-axis.
(From Earth the supernova is seen in the direction 37⁰ from the x-axis)
Den 01.08.2024 23:03, skrev Richard Hachel:
equation (19)
The rocket will see the supernova
an angle 12.7⁰ from the x-axis.
(From Earth the supernova is seen in the direction 37⁰ from the x-axis)
Here is how an observer moving at 0.8c will observe the universe:
The stars in front of him will be much closer to each other and
much brighter.
This phenomenon is called "beaming".
Le 02/08/2024 à 21:49, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 01.08.2024 13:39, skrev Richard Hachel:
The event that occurred at the supernova located
at 15,000 ly has just been recorded by the Earth observer.
He notes E = (x, y, z, To, t)
Let x = 12000, y = 9000, z = 0, To = -15000, t = 0.
This is how I write in Hachel notation.
It isn't so different from what astronomers use.
The position of the star is given as two angles and a distance.
The angles are Right ascension (RA) and Declination(DEC).
The former is equivalent to longitude and the latter to latitude.
The distance is given in Parsecs or light years.
It is of course a trivial matter to convert these three coordinates
to a Cartesian frame of reference.
Your system have the transit time of the light from the star
as a fourth coordinate, which is redundant because it is given
by the distance.
I didn't fail to notice that your √(x² + y² + z²) = -To⋅c.
So you could remove the To from your system.
What I would like physicists to understand because it is doubly
important, for the beauty of the thing, and then for the scientific
truth of the equations that will result from it, is the notion of
universal anisochrony, and the fact that what we believe to be an
absolute present time, does not exist.
That it is only a mental idea, a complete abstraction, an empty shell.
I think it is not nice to teach children this ridiculous idea that they
do not have innately, because THEY, they intuitively know the thing
without being mistaken, and do not say that what they see in the sky
does not exist or no longer exists, and that it belongs to the past, and
that perhaps, stars that they see no longer exist.
Philosophically, theologically, artistically it is not BEAUTIFUL.
And worse, scientifically, it is false.
Now, it is preferable, you are right, to use To, which is however an
abstract structure, but which places all the observers in a certain
coherence that anisochrony does not allow for all the observers at the
same time.
But it must be specified that it is a useful abstraction.
This is why it is necessary to note, I think (x,y,z,To,t) for any event perceived in the sky.
t being the moment when the observer perceives the event, but ALSO the
moment when it actually occurs, in perfect simultaneity with the observer.
Be careful, this effect is not reciprocal; because if it is true that everything I observe in the sky is part of my present moment, of my
perfect simultaneity of existence, the reverse is not true. My current existence does not exist for the whole of the observable sky and
according to the distance of the stars, it will only exist for them in t
= 2x / c. My present is in their future. If I send them a signal, they
will receive it instantly in their frame of reference, but this instant
is for ME at t=2x/c.
This geometry is very simple to understand, and if it is not understood,
it only comes from a kind of intellectual reluctance to change our own
notion of present time.
R.H.
Le 02/08/2024 à 21:49, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
No. To is a distance.
The distance to the star is usually measured by parallax.
There is no other way to determine To than to set To = -d/c
That you change the unit from ly to y doesn't change the fact
that -To⋅c = √(x² + y² + z²). To is redundant.
No, To is an abstract time.
It is the time that an observer placed very far away and at an equal
distance from A and B would measure between the reciprocal anisochrony
of A and B.
This is the time that physicists use to calculate the time taken for
light to come from Tau Ceti to us, and they say To=12 years.
But no one on Earth measures this time. It is an abstract time
supposedly measured by a distant observer placed at an equal distance
between A and B.
In reality, in the "plane of present terrestrial time" the sending of
the photon and the reception of the phton are simultaneous.
This is what is so difficult for physicists to understand, and it is
partly what blocks them in a quantity of reasoning that leads to
paradoxes that they no longer know how to resolve.
Does all this nonsensical babble change the fact that when the
distance to the star we see in the telescope is 15000 light years,
then the light we see left the star 15000 years ago?
Paul
Stupid astronomers who doesn't understand that the light they
see in the telescope left the star NOW!
You live in a very weird world, Richard! :-D
Paul
We will now move on to numerical applications.
We have an observer on Earth who has just noticed the explosion of a supernova in the sky and who sends its coordinates to Paul B Andersen.
Paul B Andersen takes out his telescope, and at the indicated location,
finds the supernova. He notes E = (12000, 9000.0, -15000.0).
He then asks for spatial confirmation from the commander of a rocket
which crosses the Earth on the x-axis, but since he knows the laws of aberration of the position of the stars, Paul, thanks to an ultra-fast computer, sends the correct coordinates in the rocket's reference frame.
So he sends: position in x':
x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) (attention negative To)
Or again, which is the same thing: x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)Vo/c]/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?aGJtGFi-pcZdeYKlbLrP7fJkFGw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
x'=40000
Or for the rocket: E'=(40000,9000,0,-41000,0)
We will note that always, always, always, for two joint observers, t=t'=0. Which translated means "they see the same universe present" but not with
the same spatial coordinates.
R.H.
Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis'
the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰,
the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰
the DEC = 0.
Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of reception,
they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from
the star 15000 years ago.
That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly.
Simple geometry will give:
x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly
y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly = 3297 ly
z' = 0 ly
t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year
E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)
Den 02.08.2024 23:17, skrev Richard Hachel:
We will now move on to numerical applications.
Yes, Let's do that!
E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)
Interesting. The rocket and Earth are colocated and receive
the same light, but on Earth the star is seen as it goes supernova,
while the rocket will see the star 6000 years before it goes supernova.
Richard, you live in a very weird world! :-D
Den 03.08.2024 23:40, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
E(x,y,z,t) = (12000 ly, 9000 ly, 0 ly, -15000.0 y)
t is when the light left the telescope, now = 0 y
Let us assume that, in accordance with convention,
the x-axis is pointing toward the vernal point Epoch J200,
and the x-y plane is the ecliptic plane. The z-axis will
then point toward the ecliptic north pole.
The RA is then arctan(9000/12000) = 37⁰
The DEC = 0⁰
The distance d = √(x² + y² + z²) = 15000 ly
Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis'
the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰,
the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰
the DEC = 0.
Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of reception,
they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from
the star 15000 years ago.
That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly.
Simple geometry will give:
x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly
y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly = 3297 ly
z' = 0 ly
t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year
E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)
? ? ?
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1>
But what are you talking about? ? ?
You're talking nonsense!!!
Your thing IS nonsense!
How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both frames
of reference? ? ?
This is about what the observers SEE in their telescopes.
They are co-located when they receive the light from the supernova,
so they obviously both see the star as it goes supernova.
Since earth observers have _measured_ (via parallax ?) the distance
to the star to be 15000 ly, and the speed of light is c in the
Earth frame, the earth observer can deduce that the light must
have left the star 15000 years ago.
Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
E(x,y,z,t) = (12000 ly, 9000 ly, 0 ly, -15000.0 y)
t is when the light left the telescope, now = 0 y
Let us assume that, in accordance with convention,
the x-axis is pointing toward the vernal point Epoch J200,
and the x-y plane is the ecliptic plane. The z-axis will
then point toward the ecliptic north pole.
The RA is then arctan(9000/12000) = 37⁰
The DEC = 0⁰
The distance d = √(x² + y² + z²) = 15000 ly
Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis'
the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰,
the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰
the DEC = 0.
Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of reception,
they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from
the star 15000 years ago.
That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly.
Simple geometry will give:
x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly
y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly = 3297 ly
z' = 0 ly
t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year
E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)
? ? ? <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1>
But what are you talking about? ? ?
You're talking nonsense!!!
Your thing IS nonsense!
How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both frames of reference? ? ?
All this is sad to cry and you show EXACTLY what I have been saying for years, namely that physicists do not understand anything at all about
the theory of relativity, and use mathematics in a completely ridiculous
and anarchic way!
But this is nonsense, Paul!!!
You practice a stupid rotation, and we can clearly see all the stupidity
of the Minkowski space-time block, stupid and abstract.
PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, I beg you to understand something!
There is NO rotation, there is NO change in y, nor change in z.
Poincaré was right and his geometry is magnificent, and we must take up
its numerical applications again.
y'=y=9ly
z'=z=0ly
This is dramatically simple.
x=12 ly
x'=40 ly
To=15 ly
To'=41ly
t'=t=0
There is a relativistic translation on the x-axis.
NOTHING MORE.
This produces a ROTATION OF THE AXIS OF VIEW, but NOT of the star!!!
But damn it, if you don't understand that, you who are one of the best posters of relativity, we are in a terrible mess, and we will never
progress.
R.H.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp>
Den 03.08.2024 23:40, skrev Richard Hachel:
:-D
This is about what the observers SEE in their telescopes.
They are co-located when they receive the light from the supernova,
so they obviously both see the star as it goes supernova.
Since earth observers have _measured_ (via parallax ?) the distance
to the star to be 15000 ly, and the speed of light is c in the
Earth frame, the earth observer can deduce that the light must
have left the star 15000 years ago.
The rocket observer will see in his telescope the star
as it goes supernova in the direction RA = 12.7⁰ and DEC = 0⁰.
He has no possibility of knowing the distance to the star or
when it went supernova, but the Earth observer know that
since they were co-located at the reception, they both have
received the light that was emitted 15000 years ago.
That means that since the speed of light is c in the rocket frame,
the distance in the rocket frame must be 15000 ly.
But the rocket observer can't know this without being told.
But we can calculate that the coordinates of the star as
it went supernova must have been:
E '= (x' = 14633 ly, y' = 3297 ly, z' 0 ly, t' = -15000 y)
Case closed.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:30:07 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Beauty is the splendor of truth.
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
We are therefore going to talk about a sensitive subject, the notion of
relativistic aberration.
A cube is placed in front of an observer, the yellow front side of which
is the only one visible.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This face is 60 meters away, and point M of the cube, relative to this
observer, is exactly 60 meters away.
Another observer placed in R', with relative speed Vo=0.8c in the x'ox
direction, crosses the first observer at the same place, at the same
time.
For the moment, we are not looking for anything too complicated, namely
what will become of the entire cube.
No.
We breathe, we breathe, we go very slowly so as not to fall into a
number
of hidden traps or false concepts.
We just ask, to start...
Where will the point M' in R' corresponding to M in R be located?
Note that in Hachel, two joint observers have strictly the same vision
of
the universe (but with an aberration in x). Everything that is seen by
one
is seen at the same moment by the other; everything that is seen is seen
by the other and vice versa; nothing that is not seen by one can be seen
by the other, and vice versa.
This is very important to understand.
A contradictor who already comes to doubt, would show that he already
completely misunderstands SR as it should be taught.
R.H.
The visual field differences between observers are known and regardless
of
the details of the motion are always related by a conformal map. This
alone
accounts for things like the appearance of the outline of a moving
sphere,
the Tyrell "rotation", etc.
Also keep in mind that the two observers, even if they are momentarily
at the same place, will have different visual fields due to the retinas
of their eyes (which are of *finite* extent (i.e., not pointlike))
accounting differently for the visually observed scene because of the different simultaneity for the two observers.
The visual field differences between observers are known and regardless
of
the details of the motion are always related by a conformal map. This
alone
accounts for things like the appearance of the outline of a moving
sphere,
the Tyrell "rotation", etc.
Also keep in mind that the two observers, even if they are momentarily
at the same place, will have different visual fields due to the retinas
of their eyes (which are of *finite* extent (i.e., not pointlike))
accounting differently for the visually observed scene because of the different simultaneity for the two observers.
--
[...]
According to Hachel, and always in accordance with logic, with truth,
and with the equations of Poincaré, who was not weak in mathematics, the notion of simultaneity is invariant by change of observer JOINT at the
moment of measurement, what varies for them is the INTERNAL CHRONOTROPY,
and not the notion of simultaneity.
[snip more nonsense]
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
contradictory "ideas" and Poincaré's work. NOTHING.
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:19, Python a écrit :
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
contradictory "ideas" and Poincaré's work. NOTHING.
Les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures.
[snip pathological trumpian rant]
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:16, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[...]
According to Hachel, and always in accordance with logic, with truth,
and with the equations of Poincaré, who was not weak in mathematics,
the notion of simultaneity is invariant by change of observer JOINT at
the moment of measurement, what varies for them is the INTERNAL
CHRONOTROPY, and not the notion of simultaneity.
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:37, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:19, Python a écrit :
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
contradictory "ideas" and Poincaré's work. NOTHING.
Les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures.
It is a fact. Anyone can check that you are lying by reading Poincaré's word. PERIOD.
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:19, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:16, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[...]
According to Hachel, and always in accordance with logic, with truth,
and with the equations of Poincaré, who was not weak in mathematics,
the notion of simultaneity is invariant by change of observer JOINT
at the moment of measurement, what varies for them is the INTERNAL
CHRONOTROPY, and not the notion of simultaneity.
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you).
poor stinker
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:40, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:37, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:19, Python a écrit :
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
contradictory "ideas" and Poincaré's work. NOTHING.
Les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures.
It is a fact. Anyone can check that you are lying by reading Poincaré's
word. PERIOD.
Samely as it is with your impudent lies of
P supporting [Einstein] about rejecting
basic [Euclidean] math.
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:40, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:37, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:19, Python a écrit :
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
contradictory "ideas" and Poincaré's work. NOTHING.
Les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures.
It is a fact. Anyone can check that you are lying by reading Poincaré's >>> word. PERIOD.
Samely as it is with your impudent lies of
P supporting [Einstein] about rejecting
basic [Euclidean] math.
Math is far out of your expertise, to say the least, Wozniak.
Using Riemannian geometry is *not* "rejecting" anything.
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:57, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:40, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:37, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:19, Python a écrit :
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
contradictory "ideas" and Poincaré's work. NOTHING.
Les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures.
It is a fact. Anyone can check that you are lying by reading Poincaré's >>>> word. PERIOD.
Samely as it is with your impudent lies of
P supporting [Einstein] about rejecting
basic [Euclidean] math.
Math is far out of your expertise, to say the least, Wozniak.
Using Riemannian geometry is *not* "rejecting" anything.
Math is far out of your expertise, to say the least, Python.
Yes, it is.
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:07, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:57, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:40, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:37, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:19, Python a écrit :
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
contradictory "ideas" and Poincaré's work. NOTHING.
Les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures.
It is a fact. Anyone can check that you are lying by reading
Poincaré's
word. PERIOD.
Samely as it is with your impudent lies of
P supporting [Einstein] about rejecting
basic [Euclidean] math.
Math is far out of your expertise, to say the least, Wozniak.
Using Riemannian geometry is *not* "rejecting" anything.
Math is far out of your expertise, to say the least, Python.
Yes, it is.
Well, this is not what the Universities and schools where I did
and do teach it thinks.
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 16:09, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:07, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:57, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:40, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:37, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>>>>>> Le 07/08/2024 à 15:19, Python a écrit :
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
contradictory "ideas" and Poincaré's work. NOTHING.
Les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures.
It is a fact. Anyone can check that you are lying by reading
Poincaré's
word. PERIOD.
Samely as it is with your impudent lies of
P supporting [Einstein] about rejecting
basic [Euclidean] math.
Math is far out of your expertise, to say the least, Wozniak.
Using Riemannian geometry is *not* "rejecting" anything.
Math is far out of your expertise, to say the least, Python.
Yes, it is.
Well, this is not what the Universities and schools where I did
and do teach it thinks.
Don't they think that Vth Lobachevsky's was
a direct negation of Vth Euclid's?
poor stinker.
W dniu 07.08.2024 o 15:19, Python pisze:
Le 07/08/2024 à 15:16, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[...]
According to Hachel, and always in accordance with logic, with truth,
and with the equations of Poincaré, who was not weak in mathematics,
the notion of simultaneity is invariant by change of observer JOINT
at the moment of measurement, what varies for them is the INTERNAL
CHRONOTROPY, and not the notion of simultaneity.
There is nothing in common between your demented ill-defined
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Actually Poincare did and assumed a four dimensional 'curved' spacetime,
from which Euclid's three-dimensional space is a 'sub-chapter'.
This euclidean space is kind of projection into the realm of the local observer, who 'cuts' spacetime into time and space, simply by being somewhere.
This is a very different concept than the usual mainstream
interpretation and actually different to the interpretation of Einstein
in his 1905 paper, too.
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
So Poincare's relativity is different to Einstein's, which was mainly
based on Hendrik Lorentz and his 'Lorentz transform'.
But Poincare regarded this concept of Lorentz as wrong
(even if he invented the name 'Lorentz transform').
This euclidean space is kind of projection into the realm of the local
observer, who 'cuts' spacetime into time and space, simply by being
somewhere.
This is not true.
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Actually Poincare did and assumed a four dimensional 'curved' spacetime,
from which Euclid's three-dimensional space is a 'sub-chapter'.
This is not true.
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:17, Python a écrit :
This euclidean space is kind of projection into the realm of the
local observer, who 'cuts' spacetime into time and space, simply by
being somewhere.
This is not true.
In any case, that would be wrong.
It's rather Minkowski who thinks like that.
[snip nonsense]
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:17, Python a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
No, it's true.
When Henri Poincaré (blessed be he and honored be his holy memory before the divine Word) wrote his transformations, he gave one of the most beautiful mathematical poems in the universe.
These transformations that Lorentz searched for years without ever finding them
are admirable.
Now, we must interpret this PHYSICALLY.
It is not by jumping like a kid like Python, shouting: "Poincaré is beautiful,
Poincaré is brilliant, Poincaré was a God in mathematics" that we will get there.
[snip more nonsense]
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:17, Python a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
No, it's true.
"no" then "it's true"?
When Henri Poincaré (blessed be he and honored be his holy memory
before the divine Word) wrote his transformations, he gave one of the
most beautiful mathematical poems in the universe.
These transformations that Lorentz searched for years without ever
finding them are admirable.
Now, we must interpret this PHYSICALLY.
It is not by jumping like a kid like Python, shouting: "Poincaré is
beautiful, Poincaré is brilliant, Poincaré was a God in mathematics"
that we will get there.
As if you had the mathematical competence to understand Poincaré! You
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:17, Python a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
No, it's true.
"no" then "it's true"?
When Henri Poincaré (blessed be he and honored be his holy memory
before the divine Word) wrote his transformations, he gave one of the
most beautiful mathematical poems in the universe.
These transformations that Lorentz searched for years without ever
finding them are admirable.
Now, we must interpret this PHYSICALLY.
It is not by jumping like a kid like Python, shouting: "Poincaré is
beautiful, Poincaré is brilliant, Poincaré was a God in mathematics"
that we will get there.
As if you had the mathematical competence to understand Poincaré! You
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you,
It's you who has no competence to understand
P. You've demonstrated it very well.
poor stinker.
Le 08/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:17, Python a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
No, it's true.
"no" then "it's true"?
When Henri Poincaré (blessed be he and honored be his holy memory
before the divine Word) wrote his transformations, he gave one of
the most beautiful mathematical poems in the universe.
These transformations that Lorentz searched for years without ever
finding them are admirable.
Now, we must interpret this PHYSICALLY.
It is not by jumping like a kid like Python, shouting: "Poincaré is
beautiful, Poincaré is brilliant, Poincaré was a God in mathematics" >>>> that we will get there.
As if you had the mathematical competence to understand Poincaré! You
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you,
:-D :-D :-D :-P
It's you who has no competence to understand
P. You've demonstrated it very well.
Sure. Fancy to teach math in my seat in a few schools in France?
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 17:12, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:17, Python a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
No, it's true.
"no" then "it's true"?
When Henri Poincaré (blessed be he and honored be his holy memory
before the divine Word) wrote his transformations, he gave one of
the most beautiful mathematical poems in the universe.
These transformations that Lorentz searched for years without ever
finding them are admirable.
Now, we must interpret this PHYSICALLY.
It is not by jumping like a kid like Python, shouting: "Poincaré is >>>>> beautiful, Poincaré is brilliant, Poincaré was a God in
mathematics" that we will get there.
As if you had the mathematical competence to understand Poincaré! You
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you,
:-D :-D :-D :-P
It's you who has no competence to understand
P. You've demonstrated it very well.
Sure. Fancy to teach math in my seat in a few schools in France?
Tried some times - hopeless.
porr stinker
Le 08/08/2024 à 17:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 17:12, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:17, Python a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
No, it's true.
"no" then "it's true"?
When Henri Poincaré (blessed be he and honored be his holy memory >>>>>> before the divine Word) wrote his transformations, he gave one of
the most beautiful mathematical poems in the universe.
These transformations that Lorentz searched for years without ever >>>>>> finding them are admirable.
Now, we must interpret this PHYSICALLY.
It is not by jumping like a kid like Python, shouting: "Poincaré
is beautiful, Poincaré is brilliant, Poincaré was a God in
mathematics" that we will get there.
As if you had the mathematical competence to understand Poincaré! You >>>>
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you,
:-D :-D :-D :-P
It's you who has no competence to understand
P. You've demonstrated it very well.
Sure. Fancy to teach math in my seat in a few schools in France?
Tried some times - hopeless.
You tried to teach? And failed? Surprising. What happened?
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 17:25, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 17:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 17:12, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:17, Python a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
No, it's true.
"no" then "it's true"?
When Henri Poincaré (blessed be he and honored be his holy memory >>>>>>> before the divine Word) wrote his transformations, he gave one of >>>>>>> the most beautiful mathematical poems in the universe.
These transformations that Lorentz searched for years without
ever finding them are admirable.
Now, we must interpret this PHYSICALLY.
It is not by jumping like a kid like Python, shouting: "Poincaré >>>>>>> is beautiful, Poincaré is brilliant, Poincaré was a God in
mathematics" that we will get there.
As if you had the mathematical competence to understand Poincaré! You >>>>>
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you,
:-D :-D :-D :-P
It's you who has no competence to understand
P. You've demonstrated it very well.
Sure. Fancy to teach math in my seat in a few schools in France?
Tried some times - hopeless.
You tried to teach? And failed? Surprising. What happened?
You're too dumb.
Le 08/08/2024 à 17:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 17:25, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 17:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 17:12, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:17, Python a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski. >>>>>>>>>This is true.
No, it's true.
"no" then "it's true"?
When Henri Poincaré (blessed be he and honored be his holy
memory before the divine Word) wrote his transformations, he
gave one of the most beautiful mathematical poems in the universe. >>>>>>>> These transformations that Lorentz searched for years without
ever finding them are admirable.
Now, we must interpret this PHYSICALLY.
It is not by jumping like a kid like Python, shouting: "Poincaré >>>>>>>> is beautiful, Poincaré is brilliant, Poincaré was a God in
mathematics" that we will get there.
As if you had the mathematical competence to understand Poincaré! >>>>>>> You
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you,
:-D :-D :-D :-P
It's you who has no competence to understand
P. You've demonstrated it very well.
Sure. Fancy to teach math in my seat in a few schools in France?
Tried some times - hopeless.
You tried to teach? And failed? Surprising. What happened?
You're too dumb.
Who is "you"? I don't remember following your class.
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?QKHiJS4WFXlVEpl_szZx_gwP9YE@jntp/Data.Media:1>
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Actually Poincare did and assumed a four dimensional 'curved'
spacetime, from which Euclid's three-dimensional space is a
'sub-chapter'.
This is not true.
This euclidean space is kind of projection into the realm of the local
observer, who 'cuts' spacetime into time and space, simply by being
somewhere.
This is not true.
This is a very different concept than the usual mainstream
interpretation and actually different to the interpretation of
Einstein in his 1905 paper, too.
This is not true.
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
So Poincare's relativity is different to Einstein's, which was mainly
based on Hendrik Lorentz and his 'Lorentz transform'.
This is not true.
But Poincare regarded this concept of Lorentz as wrong
This is not true.
(even if he invented the name 'Lorentz transform').
This is true.
Am Donnerstag000008, 08.08.2024 um 13:17 schrieb Python:
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Actually Poincare did and assumed a four dimensional 'curved'
spacetime, from which Euclid's three-dimensional space is a
'sub-chapter'.
This is not true.
This euclidean space is kind of projection into the realm of the
local observer, who 'cuts' spacetime into time and space, simply by
being somewhere.
This is not true.
This is a very different concept than the usual mainstream
interpretation and actually different to the interpretation of
Einstein in his 1905 paper, too.
This is not true.
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
So Poincare's relativity is different to Einstein's, which was mainly
based on Hendrik Lorentz and his 'Lorentz transform'.
This is not true.
But Poincare regarded this concept of Lorentz as wrong
This is not true.
(even if he invented the name 'Lorentz transform').
This is true.
Would mind telling a little about your reasons to think so?
You just say:
this is true and that ain't.
But why do you think so?
Le 09/08/2024 à 07:35, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Donnerstag000008, 08.08.2024 um 13:17 schrieb Python:
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Actually Poincare did and assumed a four dimensional 'curved'
spacetime, from which Euclid's three-dimensional space is a
'sub-chapter'.
This is not true.
This euclidean space is kind of projection into the realm of the
local observer, who 'cuts' spacetime into time and space, simply by
being somewhere.
This is not true.
This is a very different concept than the usual mainstream
interpretation and actually different to the interpretation of
Einstein in his 1905 paper, too.
This is not true.
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
So Poincare's relativity is different to Einstein's, which was
mainly based on Hendrik Lorentz and his 'Lorentz transform'.
This is not true.
But Poincare regarded this concept of Lorentz as wrong
This is not true.
(even if he invented the name 'Lorentz transform').
This is true.
Would mind telling a little about your reasons to think so?
You just say:
this is true and that ain't.
But why do you think so?
Because I've actually read Poincaré, Einstein, et al.
Le 09/08/2024 à 07:35, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Donnerstag000008, 08.08.2024 um 13:17 schrieb Python:
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Actually Poincare did and assumed a four dimensional 'curved'
spacetime, from which Euclid's three-dimensional space is a
'sub-chapter'.
This is not true.
This euclidean space is kind of projection into the realm of the
local observer, who 'cuts' spacetime into time and space, simply by
being somewhere.
This is not true.
This is a very different concept than the usual mainstream
interpretation and actually different to the interpretation of
Einstein in his 1905 paper, too.
This is not true.
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
So Poincare's relativity is different to Einstein's, which was mainly
based on Hendrik Lorentz and his 'Lorentz transform'.
This is not true.
But Poincare regarded this concept of Lorentz as wrong
This is not true.
(even if he invented the name 'Lorentz transform').
This is true.
Would mind telling a little about your reasons to think so?
You just say:
this is true and that ain't.
But why do you think so?
Because I've actually read Poincaré, Einstein, et al.
Le 09/08/2024 à 10:56, Python a écrit :
Because I've actually read Poincaré, Einstein, et al.
Gooood!
But don't forget two things.
1. Read Hachel too
2. When you have assimilated correctly (I mean correctly),
and Poincaré,
and Einstein, and Minkowski,
and Hachel,
don't forget to form your own personal and independent
opinion.
R.H.
and argument than others.” -- Douglas Adams
And an informed opinion means being informed by what
happens in reality,
as well as what the mathematics
really means.
What I've read of him strikes me as a bit of a stuffed shirt.
and Einstein, and Minkowski,
Minkowski spacetime is an INTERPRETATION of SR.
Einstein
was a bit put off by it, at least at first.
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
Le 09/08/2024 à 17:57, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
What I've read of him strikes me as a bit of a stuffed shirt.
and Einstein, and Minkowski,
Minkowski spacetime is an INTERPRETATION of SR.
YES !
Einstein
was a bit put off by it, at least at first.
"spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
something quite different." – Steven Carlip
Absolutely.
R.H.
W dniu 09.08.2024 o 17:57, gharnagel pisze:
And an informed opinion means being informed by what
happens in reality,
The one you've deleted GPS from, Harrie?
as well as what the mathematics really means.
No way your opinion can be informed then.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 17:08:55 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 09.08.2024 o 17:57, gharnagel pisze:
And an informed opinion means being informed by what
happens in reality,
The one you've deleted GPS from, Harrie?
Ah, Wozzie-the-disinformation-grease-monkey is lying
about the GPS, claiming t' = t, not bothering to define
either t' or t. Typical of a congenital liar.
as well as what the mathematics really means.
No way your opinion can be informed then.
Why not? Wozzie, the obfuscation acolyte, can't get
Le 09/08/2024 à 07:35, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Donnerstag000008, 08.08.2024 um 13:17 schrieb Python:
Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Actually Poincare did and assumed a four dimensional 'curved'
spacetime, from which Euclid's three-dimensional space is a
'sub-chapter'.
This is not true.
This euclidean space is kind of projection into the realm of the
local observer, who 'cuts' spacetime into time and space, simply by
being somewhere.
This is not true.
This is a very different concept than the usual mainstream
interpretation and actually different to the interpretation of
Einstein in his 1905 paper, too.
This is not true.
Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.
This is true.
So Poincare's relativity is different to Einstein's, which was
mainly based on Hendrik Lorentz and his 'Lorentz transform'.
This is not true.
But Poincare regarded this concept of Lorentz as wrong
This is not true.
(even if he invented the name 'Lorentz transform').
This is true.
Would mind telling a little about your reasons to think so?
You just say:
this is true and that ain't.
But why do you think so?
Because I've actually read Poincaré, Einstein, et al.
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 05:27, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 17:08:55 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 09.08.2024 o 17:57, gharnagel pisze:
And an informed opinion means being informed by what
happens in reality,
The one you've deleted GPS from, Harrie?
Ah, Wozzie-the-disinformation-grease-monkey is lying
about the GPS, claiming t' = t, not bothering to define
either t' or t. Typical of a congenital liar.
Easy one, Harrie. t is indication of one clock (Earth)
t' is the indication of the other (GPS satellite).
And they are equal, against the moronic prophecies
of your idiot guru; that's why you're trying to
delete one of them from the reality.
as well as what the mathematics really means.
No way your opinion can be informed then.
Why not? Wozzie, the obfuscation acolyte, can't get
You said that the opinion of someone unable
to understand what mathematics really means can't
be considered informed. So your surely can't.
And speaking of mathematics - it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to
announce its oldest, very important part false,
as it didn't want to fit the mad postulates
of your mad guru.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 3:45:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 05:27, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 17:08:55 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 09.08.2024 o 17:57, gharnagel pisze:
And an informed opinion means being informed by what
happens in reality,
The one you've deleted GPS from, Harrie?
Ah, Wozzie-the-disinformation-grease-monkey is lying
about the GPS, claiming t' = t, not bothering to define
either t' or t. Typical of a congenital liar.
Easy one, Harrie. t is indication of one clock (Earth)
t' is the indication of the other (GPS satellite).
And they are equal, against the moronic prophecies
of your idiot guru; that's why you're trying to
delete one of them from the reality.
Wozzie, the disinformation greasy monkey, tries his deceitful
ways again. No, the clock on earth doesn't read the same
time as the clock in the GPS satellite.
W dniu 17.07.2024 o 22:26, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:16:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
c is a constant, poor halfbrain. Of course it
is the same. As for the speed of light - even
your idiot guru was unable to stick to such
an absurd for a long time, and his GR shit
had to abandon it
Wozzie is lying again. The speed of light is locally
equal to c.
Well, Harrie, do you see any difference between
the claim "speed of light is always equal to
c" and the claim "speed of light is always locally
equal to c"?
I think you do see some difference. You're an idiot,
sure, but you're not THAT stupid. You're just a
piece of fanatic, lying piece of shit instead.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:34:12 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.07.2024 o 22:26, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:16:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
c is a constant, poor halfbrain. Of course it
is the same. As for the speed of light - even
your idiot guru was unable to stick to such
an absurd for a long time, and his GR shit
had to abandon it
Wozzie is lying again. The speed of light is locally
equal to c.
Well, Harrie, do you see any difference between
the claim "speed of light is always equal to
c" and the claim "speed of light is always locally
equal to c"?
Wozzie is dissembling again, conflating SR with GR.
In SR c is constant for all inertial observers.
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:56, Python a écrit :
Le 08/08/2024 à 16:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?QKHiJS4WFXlVEpl_szZx_gwP9YE@jntp/Data.Media:1>
[snip answer in French]
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 18:20, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:34:12 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Well, Harrie, do you see any difference between
the claim "speed of light is always equal to
c" and the claim "speed of light is always locally
equal to c"?
Wozzie is dissembling again, conflating SR with GR.
Harrie is lying and slandering again, as expected
from a relativistic doggie.
In SR c is constant for all inertial observers.
And in his GR shit your idiot guru had to abandon
that. Even such an idiot couldn't stick to such
an idiocy for a long time.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:34:11 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 18:20, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:34:12 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Well, Harrie, do you see any difference between
the claim "speed of light is always equal to
c" and the claim "speed of light is always locally
equal to c"?
Wozzie is dissembling again, conflating SR with GR.
Harrie is lying and slandering again, as expected
from a relativistic doggie.
Just telling it like I see it. Wozzie is projecting
his own dishonesty and slandering.
In SR c is constant for all inertial observers.
And in his GR shit your idiot guru had to abandon
that. Even such an idiot couldn't stick to such
an idiocy for a long time.
As everyone with a brain bigger than a walnut can
see, Wozzie, the disinformation greasy monkey, is
slandering and lying again, even about a dead guy
who can't defend himself. That makes Wozzie a
grotesque bully, too.
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 15:08, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:34:11 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Harrie is lying and slandering again, as expected
from a relativistic doggie.
Just telling it like I see it. Wozzie is projecting
his own dishonesty and slandering.
And in his GR shit your idiot guru had to abandon
that. Even such an idiot couldn't stick to such
an idiocy for a long time.
As everyone with a brain bigger than a walnut can
see, Wozzie, the disinformation greasy monkey, is
slandering and lying again, even about a dead guy
who can't defend himself. That makes Wozzie a
grotesque bully, too.
Just telling it like I see it. Harrie is projecting
his own dishonesty and slandering.
And still no number I asked.
Of course. See, trash -
lies have short legs, you can't provide the clock reading
you've babbled about - cause you fabricated it.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 13:36:05 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 15:08, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:34:11 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Harrie is lying and slandering again, as expected
from a relativistic doggie.
Just telling it like I see it. Wozzie is projecting
his own dishonesty and slandering.
And in his GR shit your idiot guru had to abandon
that. Even such an idiot couldn't stick to such
an idiocy for a long time.
As everyone with a brain bigger than a walnut can
see, Wozzie, the disinformation greasy monkey, is
slandering and lying again, even about a dead guy
who can't defend himself. That makes Wozzie a
grotesque bully, too.
Just telling it like I see it. Harrie is projecting
his own dishonesty and slandering.
So all the lying, slandering disinformation greasy monkey
can do is a sophomoric, "Oh, yeah, well so are you."
And still no number I asked.
A dissembling, slandering fool doesn't deserve an answer
to a "So when are you going to stop beating your wife?"
kind of question.
Of course. See, trash -
lies have short legs, you can't provide the clock reading
you've babbled about - cause you fabricated it.
Nope.
Exactly, trash. Those alleged clocks having readings
as your idiot guru porophecied - exist only in
sick delusions of yours and your fellow idiots.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 15:25:05 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Exactly, trash. Those alleged clocks having readings
as your idiot guru porophecied - exist only in
sick delusions of yours and your fellow idiots.
Clocks are human inventions, so smart humans will set
them to agree with natural phenomena.
Those that set
them to agree with their fantasies will be disappointed.
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 19:49, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 15:25:05 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Exactly, trash. Those alleged clocks having readings
as your idiot guru porophecied - exist only in
sick delusions of yours and your fellow idiots.
Clocks are human inventions, so smart humans will set
them to agree with natural phenomena.
Sorry, trash, they won't.
Anyone can check GPS - oppositely, they will set them
to ignore natutral phenomena.
Those that set them to agree with their fantasies
will be disappointed.
Fortunetely for your bunch of idiots you're
not THAT stupid. You only insist they should
be set to agree with your fantasies, but you're
setting them ordinary way so they indicate
t'=t, like always, and those alleged clocks
"agreeing with natural phenomena" and
"confirming" your idiocies - exist only in
your sick delusions.
On 08/11/2024 01:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/11/2024 01:19 PM, gharnagel wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:07:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 19:49, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 15:25:05 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Exactly, trash. Those alleged clocks having readings
as your idiot guru porophecied - exist only in
sick delusions of yours and your fellow idiots.
Clocks are human inventions, so smart humans will set
them to agree with natural phenomena.
Sorry, trash, they won't.
Denigration and prevarication aren't valid arguments.
Anyone can check GPS - oppositely, they will set them
to ignore natutral phenomena.
Wozniak asserts that "t' = t" in the GPS system, but he
never defines his terms. Sometimes he demands he be
told what the clocks in orbit are reading, but he doesn't
specify the point where they should be read. Since the
system sets the same time over the whole earth, it's
obviously not ignoring "natutral phenomena."
Those that set them to agree with their fantasies
will be disappointed.
Fortunetely for your bunch of idiots you're
not THAT stupid. You only insist they should
be set to agree with your fantasies, but you're
setting them ordinary way so they indicate
t'=t, like always, and those alleged clocks
"agreeing with natural phenomena" and
"confirming" your idiocies - exist only in
your sick delusions.
Sorry to say, but Wozniak appears to be the one with
"sick delusions" since motional and gravitational
time dilation are confirmed phenomena which would
be apparent (in fact, was observed in the first
satellite launched) if not engineered to make the
orbital clocks agree with ground clocks -- only as
observed by the ground clocks. So Wozniak deceives
when he claims "anyone can check the GPS" and that
they're set the "ordinary way so they t' = t."
How does he know they're set "the ordinary way"?
He doesn't, of course. All the engineers who
designed the system have testified this is not so,
but Wozniak, who doesn't know how the system works,
vacuously asserts otherwise. Case closed.
Well if you suss out that the equivalence principle,
that gravity is the same as acceleration, is a
terrestrial thing, and show that Hafaele-Keating flew
a particular path, and make for the rubidium laser
and the Pound-Rebka a bit of momentum, as it were,
then with that the Lense-Thirring and frame-dragging
is a thing, that GPS satellites as much advise their
differences as confirm them, lunar-laser ranging or
for Shapiro in the photon sector, then what you get
to is a real space-contraction that varies pretty
much according to the linear and the rotational,
with the linear carring space-frames in space contraction
and the rotational freely rotating in space-contraction,
and where for example the Aspect-type experiments are
a thing or Bell's, while even Michelson-Morley can be
considered with regards to where it's null, about the
particulars of the configuration of these experiments
in largely their terrestrial frame, there's that the
space-contraction and a fall-gravity fit most of the
same data of the critical experiments, while also
not being wrong about the Parameterized Post-Newtonian
Ephemeris, where lives Earth and its surrounds in their
orbits, terrestrial.
This isn't so different, yet, with a fuller dialectical
account of a deconstructive account and real continuum mechanics,
makes a better theory that isn't just broken by all the
missing impetus of supposed luminous matter and energy
in the entire cosmological survey, as that's thoroughly broken,
according to conscientious science.
Allais effect, ....
Cf. "Modern Tests of Relativistic Gravitational Theories"
https://www.google.com/search?q=Pound%20Rebka%20%22rubidium%22
Le 11/08/2024 à 22:39, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 08/11/2024 01:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
....
This isn't so different, yet, with a fuller dialectical
account of a deconstructive account and real continuum mechanics,
makes a better theory that isn't just broken by all the
missing impetus of supposed luminous matter and energy
in the entire cosmological survey, as that's thoroughly broken,
according to conscientious science.
Allais effect, ....
Cf. "Modern Tests of Relativistic Gravitational Theories"
https://www.google.com/search?q=Pound%20Rebka%20%22rubidium%22
Your post makes absolutely no sense from start to finish...
You are a bot, right?
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 20:49:45 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2024 à 22:39, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 08/11/2024 01:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
....
This isn't so different, yet, with a fuller dialectical
account of a deconstructive account and real continuum mechanics,
makes a better theory that isn't just broken by all the
missing impetus of supposed luminous matter and energy
in the entire cosmological survey, as that's thoroughly broken,
according to conscientious science.
Allais effect, ....
Cf. "Modern Tests of Relativistic Gravitational Theories"
https://www.google.com/search?q=Pound%20Rebka%20%22rubidium%22
Your post makes absolutely no sense from start to finish...
You are a bot, right?
Perhaps not. A friend of mine told about a person where he worked
who spouted technical words, each of which sounded like he knew
what he was talking about, but when put together ... made absolutely
no sense.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:07:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 19:49, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 15:25:05 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Exactly, trash. Those alleged clocks having readings
as your idiot guru porophecied - exist only in
sick delusions of yours and your fellow idiots.
Clocks are human inventions, so smart humans will set
them to agree with natural phenomena.
Sorry, trash, they won't.
Denigration and prevarication aren't valid arguments.
Anyone can check GPS - oppositely, they will set them
to ignore natutral phenomena.
Wozniak asserts that "t' = t" in the GPS system, but he
never defines his terms.
Easy one, Harrie. t is indication of one clock (Earth)
t' is the indication of the other (GPS satellite).
And they are equal, against the moronic prophecies
of your idiot guru; that's why you're trying to
delete one of them from the reality.
Fortunetely for your bunch of idiots you're
not THAT stupid. You only insist they should
be set to agree with your fantasies, but you're
setting them ordinary way so they indicate
t'=t, like always, and those alleged clocks
"agreeing with natural phenomena" and
"confirming" your idiocies - exist only in
your sick delusions.
Sorry to say, but Wozniak appears to be the one with
"sick delusions" since motional and gravitational
time dilation are confirmed phenomena which would
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 22:19, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:07:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 19:49, gharnagel pisze:
Clocks are human inventions, so smart humans will set
them to agree with natural phenomena.
Sorry, trash, they won't.
Denigration and prevarication aren't valid arguments.
Anyone can check GPS - oppositely, they will set them
to ignore natutral phenomena.
Wozniak asserts that "t' = t" in the GPS system, but he
Harrie asserts t'<>t,
but when asked what t' is then - he's only spitting,
insulting and slandering.
Let's try again: so, when t(time indicated
by a ground base clock) is 2024-08-31
17:00:00.00000000 - t' (time indicated by
a satellite clock) will be? Consider the
simultaneity of the base.
Lies have short legs.
never defines his terms.
A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic
doggie in general and from Harrie especially.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 3:45:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Easy one, Harrie. t is indication of one clock (Earth)
t' is the indication of the other (GPS satellite).
And they are equal, against the moronic prophecies
of your idiot guru; that's why you're trying to
delete one of them from the reality.
And poor lying piece of shit Harrie did surely
notice that because it has answerred.
Fortunetely for your bunch of idiots you're
not THAT stupid. You only insist they should
be set to agree with your fantasies, but you're
setting them ordinary way so they indicate
t'=t, like always, and those alleged clocks
"agreeing with natural phenomena" and
"confirming" your idiocies - exist only in
your sick delusions.
Sorry to say, but Wozniak appears to be the one with
"sick delusions" since motional and gravitational
time dilation are confirmed phenomena which would
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Nobody sane is going to set clocks to agree with
your alleged "natural phenomena", and even the
hardest Shit fanatics are not really THAT stupid.
They only pretend.
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 14:53, gharnagel pisze:...
Wozniak doesn't say WHERE the measurement of the
satellite clock is made. Of course,
Harrie lies and desperately tries
to pretend that an answer different
than "2024-08-31 17:00:00.00000000
with the precision of an acceptable
error" exists.
I've written it clearly: consider the
simultaneity of the base. Not that it
makes any difference
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 4:33:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:You've used many others insults instead.
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 22:19, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:07:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 19:49, gharnagel pisze:
Clocks are human inventions, so smart humans will set
them to agree with natural phenomena.
Sorry, trash, they won't.
Denigration and prevarication aren't valid arguments.
Anyone can check GPS - oppositely, they will set them
to ignore natutral phenomena.
Wozniak asserts that "t' = t" in the GPS system, but he
Harrie asserts t'<>t,
Do I? How could I without knowing what t' and t are? :-))
but when asked what t' is then - he's only spitting,
insulting and slandering.
I wasn't the one calling people "trash"
Let's try again: so, when t(time indicated
by a ground base clock) is 2024-08-31
17:00:00.00000000 - t' (time indicated by
a satellite clock) will be? Consider the
simultaneity of the base.
Wozniak doesn't say WHERE the measurement of the
satellite clock is made. Of course,
I wonder if nurses can tell the difference.
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 15:27, Python pisze:
I wonder if nurses can tell the difference.
Le 12/08/2024 à 15:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 15:27, Python pisze:
I wonder if nurses can tell the difference.
After a long day at work as an "information engineer" (which
means fighting with winmine.exe and solitaire.exe) Maciej calls his
mother to ask if she'd need some stuff from the shop he could buy on his
way back home.
« oh yes, my glorious son, best logician Humanity ever had,
look for a loaf of bread and if you find eggs bring a dozen
of them. »
Later that day, Wozniak brought home twelve loafs of bread.
(Note for psychotic Wozniak: There were eggs)
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 14:53, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 4:33:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Harrie asserts t'<>t,
Do I? How could I without knowing what t' and t are? :-))
but when asked what t' is then - he's only spitting,
insulting and slandering.
I wasn't the one calling people "trash"
You've used many others insults instead.
And slanders as well.
True, talking to fanatic, lying scumbags
like you, Python and others I sadly have
to partially descend to your level.
Partially.
Let's try again: so, when t(time indicated
by a ground base clock) is 2024-08-31
17:00:00.00000000 - t' (time indicated by
a satellite clock) will be? Consider the
simultaneity of the base.
Wozniak doesn't say WHERE the measurement of the
satellite clock is made. Of course,
Harrie lies and desperately tries
to pretend that an answer different
than "2024-08-31 17:00:00.00000000
with the precision of an acceptable
error" exists.
I've written it clearly: consider the
simultaneity of the base. Not that it
makes any difference outside of the
gedanken world of your absurd delusions
- but you've got it.
Lies have short legs, sorry, trash.
I've told you precisely and 2 or 3 times
where it is made. In the base.
Le 12/08/2024 à 17:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
I've told you precisely and 2 or 3 times
where it is made. In the base.
Oops. Unfortunately all your base are belong to us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 17:36, Python pisze:
Le 12/08/2024 à 17:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
I've told you precisely and 2 or 3 times
where it is made. In the base.
Oops. Unfortunately all your base are belong to us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us
Oh, a joke of the usual Python's level.
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:21:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 14:53, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 4:33:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Harrie asserts t'<>t,
Do I? How could I without knowing what t' and t are? :-))
but when asked what t' is then - he's only spitting,
insulting and slandering.
I wasn't the one calling people "trash"
You've used many others insults instead.
And slanders as well.
Only in response to Wozniak's insults and slanders. He
Let's try again: so, when t(time indicated
by a ground base clock) is 2024-08-31
17:00:00.00000000 - t' (time indicated by
a satellite clock) will be? Consider the
simultaneity of the base.
Wozniak doesn't say WHERE the measurement of the
satellite clock is made. Of course,
Harrie lies and desperately tries
to pretend that an answer different
than "2024-08-31 17:00:00.00000000
with the precision of an acceptable
error" exists.
Of course different answers exist, depending
on where the measurement is made.
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:30:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 16:23, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:21:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
You've used many others insults instead.
And slanders as well.
Only in response to Wozniak's insults and slanders. He
No, trash. It was oppositely.
I'm deathly afraid Wozniak is lying again.
I've told you precisely and 2 or 3 times
where it is made. In the base.
The "base"? A baseball base? A solution with
pH > 7? An air force base?
And your answer is?
Let me guess: more lies, more slanders,
more insults.
Nope. Wozniak does enough of those to send ten
men to the lake of fire and brimstone. He lies
by omission of all the confirmations of relativity
and focuses on the GPS which was engineered to
overcome the innate non-simultaneity between the
earth clocks and the orbiting clocks. His whole
assertion is a sham, a con, a lie.
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 16:23, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:21:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
You've used many others insults instead.
And slanders as well.
Only in response to Wozniak's insults and slanders. He
No, trash. It was oppositely.
Harrie lies and desperately tries
to pretend that an answer different
than "2024-08-31 17:00:00.00000000
with the precision of an acceptable
error" exists.
Of course different answers exist, depending
on where the measurement is made.
I've told you precisely and 2 or 3 times
where it is made. In the base.
And your answer is?
Let me guess: more lies, more slanders,
more insults.
gharnagel wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:30:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And your answer is?
Let me guess: more lies, more slanders, more insults.
Nope. Wozniak does enough of those to send ten men to the lake of fire
and brimstone. He lies by omission of all the confirmations of
relativity and focuses on the GPS which was engineered to overcome the
innate non-simultaneity between the earth clocks and the orbiting
clocks. His whole assertion is a sham, a con, a lie.
so true indeed. This renown Christian says it plainly the cacamerica is 𝙖 𝙬𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙚 to israel, which is so funny indeed.
'𝗢𝘂𝗿_𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗔𝗹𝗹𝘆'.._𝘄𝗲_𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗮_𝗹𝗼𝘁
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/9XNVywuG8Qbf
𝗛𝗶𝘀_𝗷𝗼𝗯_𝘄𝗮𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗲,_𝗿𝗼𝗯_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀.
𝗣𝗗𝗙_𝗕𝗼𝗼𝗸_𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗸_𝗶𝗻_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/ezkuCyIsSS8k
𝗝𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱_-_𝗜𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/vKKwmYzLlK21
𝗪𝗵𝗼_𝗶𝘀_𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_-_𝗞𝗲𝗻_𝗢'𝗞𝗲𝗲𝗳𝗲
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/jBet1q0LLjxB
... Considering all the evidence that's
coming out about an afterlife,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_Life_(Moody_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_for_Real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_from_Heaven
he should really be worried about his future:
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." -- Revelation 21:8
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 19:51, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:30:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
No, trash. It was oppositely.
I'm deathly afraid Wozniak is lying again.
In response to your fellow idiots -
"nazi antisemite", "Polish drunkard full of
bottles of vodka" "licking toilets inside
janitor"... sounds familiar?
Talking to fanatic lying relativistic scumbags
I had sadly to partially descend to their level.
Partially.
I've told you precisely and 2 or 3 times
where it is made. In the base.
The "base"? A baseball base? A solution with
pH > 7? An air force base?
We were talking about GPS clocks - one in a ground
GPS base,
the other on a satellite.
Do you know now what base, or are you too stupid
even for that?
So, let's try again: so, when t(time indicated
by a ground base clock) is 2024-08-31
17:00:00.00000000 - t' (time indicated by
a satellite clock) will be? Consider the
simultaneity of the base.
And your answer is?
Let me guess: more lies, more slanders,
more insults.
Nope. Wozniak does enough of those to send ten
men to the lake of fire and brimstone. He lies
by omission of all the confirmations of relativity
and focuses on the GPS which was engineered to
overcome the innate non-simultaneity between the
earth clocks and the orbiting clocks. His whole
assertion is a sham, a con, a lie.
I've guessed correctly. Of course.
On 08/12/2024 04:49 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2024 à 01:44, gharnagel a écrit :
... Considering all the evidence that's
coming out about an afterlife,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_Life_(Moody_book)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_for_Real
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_from_Heaven
he should really be worried about his future:
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." -- Revelation 21:8
Why are you introducing such weird bullshit?
Perhaps you'd be happier with "odd" instead of "weird",
it's even less letters to spell and mouth out a word,
for your infantile in-group out-casting.
It seems he's reflecting upon that according to some
popular theories of justice delivered eventually,
that liars, gossips, and such are doomed to an
eternity of deprivation, strife, and agony.
Of course it's not scientific to even aver the existence
of the soul, it's super-scientific, and such notions of
the deserved and the after-life according to morals
doesn't mean much, to many.
For a long time though it kept a lot of bad behavior in check.
There was also for those who aren't carrot-and-stick types
that there are carrots like that being nice and enlightened
might allow karma to see reincarnation in a higher form,
vis-a-vis, how you say, a usual theory where it's worm-food.
Anyways though the clocks on-board the GPS satellites
both advise and are advised what's measure according to
their moving dead-reckoning, as with regards to the
ephemeris, which everybody knows is Parameterized Post-Newtonian,
which is not the same as "defined by Special Relativity",
while though it is defined by a kind of Relativity,
just, not the one most think they have.
On 08/12/2024 05:14 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2024 à 02:08, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 08/12/2024 04:49 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2024 à 01:44, gharnagel a écrit :
... Considering all the evidence that's
coming out about an afterlife,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_Life_(Moody_book)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_for_Real
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_from_Heaven
he should really be worried about his future:
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." -- Revelation 21:8
Why are you introducing such weird bullshit?
Perhaps you'd be happier with "odd" instead of "weird",
it's even less letters to spell and mouth out a word,
for your infantile in-group out-casting.
It seems he's reflecting upon that according to some
popular theories of justice delivered eventually,
that liars, gossips, and such are doomed to an
eternity of deprivation, strife, and agony.
Of course it's not scientific to even aver the existence
of the soul, it's super-scientific, and such notions of
the deserved and the after-life according to morals
doesn't mean much, to many.
For a long time though it kept a lot of bad behavior in check.
There was also for those who aren't carrot-and-stick types
that there are carrots like that being nice and enlightened
might allow karma to see reincarnation in a higher form,
vis-a-vis, how you say, a usual theory where it's worm-food.
Anyways though the clocks on-board the GPS satellites
both advise and are advised what's measure according to
their moving dead-reckoning, as with regards to the
ephemeris, which everybody knows is Parameterized Post-Newtonian,
which is not the same as "defined by Special Relativity",
while though it is defined by a kind of Relativity,
just, not the one most think they have.
Ross, could you refrain from adding nonsense to nonsense? Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tODnCZvVtLg&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=15
The fall gravity is a great idea, though it does involve
having a super-fluid and tachyonic model of flux,
while theory today, has officially "no opinion, is the opinion",
because otherwise gravitating bodies would constantly be doing
work and violate conservation and perpetual motion, or
rather perpetual work output of an otherwise closed system.
I think it's a good idea if you have the time and capacity,
to consider something like d'Espagnat's Philosophy and Physics,
as with respect to, Einstein's "model physicist" and "model
philosopher", that as a theoretical physicist he talks about
or rather writes about in his book that he left for us.
If you don't know Bohm, David Bohm, particularly for Implicate
Order, I'd say you're missing out, where Bohm-deBroglie and
the pilot wave in quantum mechanics wave/particle duality wave
theory, is a result of having all the data on the table.
So, I can just point to them, while at the same time,
any good theory of everything physics-wise has to also
be one mathematics-wise, for there to be one, at all.
So, fall gravity is a natural and given enough thought
necessary feature of a theory where all the other usual
principles of the theory of physics, which is only sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials and least action, all hold, all the time.
Then, that the Parameterized Post-Newtonian _is_ the
Ephemeris in effect, and is updated regularly,
is a fact that is required to drive the updates to
the clocks to the satellites in their orbits so that
all the receivers at the ground-stations can be dirt-cheap
solid-state simple-theory minders and keepers of you.
On 08/12/2024 06:46 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2024 à 03:32, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 08/12/2024 05:14 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2024 à 02:08, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
On 08/12/2024 04:49 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2024 à 01:44, gharnagel a écrit :
... Considering all the evidence that's
coming out about an afterlife,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_Life_(Moody_book)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_for_Real
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_from_Heaven
he should really be worried about his future:
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." -- Revelation 21:8
Why are you introducing such weird bullshit?
Perhaps you'd be happier with "odd" instead of "weird",
it's even less letters to spell and mouth out a word,
for your infantile in-group out-casting.
It seems he's reflecting upon that according to some
popular theories of justice delivered eventually,
that liars, gossips, and such are doomed to an
eternity of deprivation, strife, and agony.
Of course it's not scientific to even aver the existence
of the soul, it's super-scientific, and such notions of
the deserved and the after-life according to morals
doesn't mean much, to many.
For a long time though it kept a lot of bad behavior in check.
There was also for those who aren't carrot-and-stick types
that there are carrots like that being nice and enlightened
might allow karma to see reincarnation in a higher form,
vis-a-vis, how you say, a usual theory where it's worm-food.
Anyways though the clocks on-board the GPS satellites
both advise and are advised what's measure according to
their moving dead-reckoning, as with regards to the
ephemeris, which everybody knows is Parameterized Post-Newtonian,
which is not the same as "defined by Special Relativity",
while though it is defined by a kind of Relativity,
just, not the one most think they have.
Ross, could you refrain from adding nonsense to nonsense? Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tODnCZvVtLg&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=15
The fall gravity is a great idea, though it does involve
having a super-fluid and tachyonic model of flux,
while theory today, has officially "no opinion, is the opinion",
because otherwise gravitating bodies would constantly be doing
work and violate conservation and perpetual motion, or
rather perpetual work output of an otherwise closed system.
I think it's a good idea if you have the time and capacity,
to consider something like d'Espagnat's Philosophy and Physics,
as with respect to, Einstein's "model physicist" and "model
philosopher", that as a theoretical physicist he talks about
or rather writes about in his book that he left for us.
If you don't know Bohm, David Bohm, particularly for Implicate
Order, I'd say you're missing out, where Bohm-deBroglie and
the pilot wave in quantum mechanics wave/particle duality wave
theory, is a result of having all the data on the table.
So, I can just point to them, while at the same time,
any good theory of everything physics-wise has to also
be one mathematics-wise, for there to be one, at all.
So, fall gravity is a natural and given enough thought
necessary feature of a theory where all the other usual
principles of the theory of physics, which is only sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials and least action, all hold, all the time.
Then, that the Parameterized Post-Newtonian _is_ the
Ephemeris in effect, and is updated regularly,
is a fact that is required to drive the updates to
the clocks to the satellites in their orbits so that
all the receivers at the ground-stations can be dirt-cheap
solid-state simple-theory minders and keepers of you.
Ross. You need professional medical help. FAST.
I think you're making a mockery and doing a disservice
to people with real medical problems.
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 18:05:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 12.08.2024 o 19:51, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:30:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
No, trash. It was oppositely.
I'm deathly afraid Wozniak is lying again.
In response to your fellow idiots -
"nazi antisemite", "Polish drunkard full of
bottles of vodka" "licking toilets inside
janitor"... sounds familiar?
Nope. I never said those things.
Talking to fanatic lying relativistic scumbags
I had sadly to partially descend to their level.
Partially.
But Wozniak sinks immediately to insults, slander
and a a big juicy lie :-))
I've told you precisely and 2 or 3 times
where it is made. In the base.
The "base"? A baseball base? A solution with
pH > 7? An air force base?
We were talking about GPS clocks - one in a ground
GPS base,
A GPS "base"? Where is it? WHAT is it? Look it
up on your brozer, what do you get? Something you
can buy on Amazon. Is THAT what you mean?
the other on a satellite.
No one has access to what the satellite clock actually
reads AT the satellite.
Do you know now what base, or are you too stupid
even for that?
Ah, Wozniak debases himself again by sinking to insults
and personal attacks.
I know what controls the satellites:
https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/control/
something that Wozniak doesn't seem to be aware of.
So, let's try again: so, when t(time indicated
by a ground base clock) is 2024-08-31
17:00:00.00000000 - t' (time indicated by
a satellite clock) will be? Consider the
simultaneity of the base.
It's SO strange that a self-proclaimed "engineer"
Le 13/08/2024 à 01:44, gharnagel a écrit :
... Considering all the evidence that's
coming out about an afterlife,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_Life_(Moody_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_for_Real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_from_Heaven
he should really be worried about his future:
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." -- Revelation 21:8
Why are you introducing such weird bullshit?
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:49:48 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2024 à 01:44, gharnagel a écrit :
... Considering all the evidence that's
coming out about an afterlife,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_Life_(Moody_book)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_for_Real
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_from_Heaven
he should really be worried about his future:
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." -- Revelation 21:8
Why are you introducing such weird bullshit?
A few years ago, I did a statistical analysis of
MacDougall's "experiment" and concluded that it
was 99.9% probable that one's body lost measurable
weight upon death. It wasn't 21 grams as the Wiki
site says: that was the largest value. MacDougall
experimented on seven terminal patients, but only
four had valid results (one died before he could
get his system set up, a nurse interfered with one
and something else happened with the third). The
only valid criticism of his work is the paucity of
data. He was kicked out of the hospital because
his work was considered to be macabre.
The modern reporting of his work is disingenuous
because it implies more precision than was involved:
MacDougall didn't weigh in grams, the four examples
were 3/8, 1/2, 1/2 and 3/4 ounce IIRC.
So it IS a "weird" result, but it's not quite BS.
Does it belong here? Does Wozniak belong here?
I wouldn't post it if Wozniak didn't post his
blatant lies. He needs the fear of God instilled
in him, IMHO :-)
I noticed you've been trying to deal with the
spammer(s). That's probably as ineffective as my
dealing with spammer Wozniak. :-)
Anyway, the other three links concern near-death
experiences, which can be considered as anecdotal,
I guess, but it all adds up to serious doubts
about the belief system of atheists.
And then there's the AATIP revelations. What are
these things? Are they ET? If so, they have physics
far beyond what we deem possible. Is this related
to MacDougall and the NDEs? I don't know, but doesn't
all this spark your curiosity?
Le 13/08/2024 à 14:38, gharnagel a écrit :
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:49:48 +0000, Python wrote:
Why are you introducing such weird bullshit?
A few years ago, I did a statistical analysis of
MacDougall's "experiment" and concluded that it
was 99.9% probable that one's body lost measurable
weight upon death. It wasn't 21 grams as the Wiki
site says: that was the largest value. MacDougall
experimented on seven terminal patients, but only
four had valid results (one died before he could
get his system set up, a nurse interfered with one
and something else happened with the third). The
only valid criticism of his work is the paucity of
data. He was kicked out of the hospital because
his work was considered to be macabre.
The modern reporting of his work is disingenuous
because it implies more precision than was involved:
MacDougall didn't weigh in grams, the four examples
were 3/8, 1/2, 1/2 and 3/4 ounce IIRC.
So it IS a "weird" result, but it's not quite BS.
Does it belong here? Does Wozniak belong here?
I wouldn't post it if Wozniak didn't post his
blatant lies. He needs the fear of God instilled
in him, IMHO :-)
I noticed you've been trying to deal with the
spammer(s). That's probably as ineffective as my
dealing with spammer Wozniak. :-)
Anyway, the other three links concern near-death
experiences, which can be considered as anecdotal,
I guess, but it all adds up to serious doubts
about the belief system of atheists.
And then there's the AATIP revelations. What are
these things? Are they ET? If so, they have physics
far beyond what we deem possible. Is this related
to MacDougall and the NDEs? I don't know, but doesn't
all this spark your curiosity?
This is complete BS.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:27:10 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2024 à 14:38, gharnagel a écrit :
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:49:48 +0000, Python wrote:
Why are you introducing such weird bullshit?
A few years ago, I did a statistical analysis of
MacDougall's "experiment" and concluded that it
was 99.9% probable that one's body lost measurable
weight upon death. It wasn't 21 grams as the Wiki
site says: that was the largest value. MacDougall
experimented on seven terminal patients, but only
four had valid results (one died before he could
get his system set up, a nurse interfered with one
and something else happened with the third). The
only valid criticism of his work is the paucity of
data. He was kicked out of the hospital because
his work was considered to be macabre.
The modern reporting of his work is disingenuous
because it implies more precision than was involved:
MacDougall didn't weigh in grams, the four examples
were 3/8, 1/2, 1/2 and 3/4 ounce IIRC.
So it IS a "weird" result, but it's not quite BS.
Does it belong here? Does Wozniak belong here?
I wouldn't post it if Wozniak didn't post his
blatant lies. He needs the fear of God instilled
in him, IMHO :-)
I noticed you've been trying to deal with the
spammer(s). That's probably as ineffective as my
dealing with spammer Wozniak. :-)
Anyway, the other three links concern near-death
experiences, which can be considered as anecdotal,
I guess, but it all adds up to serious doubts
about the belief system of atheists.
And then there's the AATIP revelations. What are
these things? Are they ET? If so, they have physics
far beyond what we deem possible. Is this related
to MacDougall and the NDEs? I don't know, but doesn't
all this spark your curiosity?
This is complete BS.
Okay, so you aren't curious. Even about the AATIP stuff?
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=aatip+ufo+footage#id=2&vid=7bfc7658cf746fc27c50af6747aaecff&action=click
Are those BS, too?
“There may be millions of inhabited worlds circling other
suns, harboring beings who to us would seem godlike, with
civilizations and cultures beyond our wildest dreams.”
-- Arthur C. Clarke
Don't you think so?
Le 13/08/2024 à 15:47, gharnagel a écrit :
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:27:10 +0000, Python wrote:
This is complete BS.
Okay, so you aren't curious. Even about the AATIP stuff?
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=aatip+ufo+footage#id=2&vid=7bfc7658cf746fc27c50af6747aaecff&action=click
Are those BS, too?
Of course...
“There may be millions of inhabited worlds circling other
suns, harboring beings who to us would seem godlike, with
civilizations and cultures beyond our wildest dreams.”
-- Arthur C. Clarke
Don't you think so?
"may be". IMHO it is very very unlikely.
Should we believe EVERYTHING scientists say?
There is something quite strange about human beings
from a behavioral point of view. They say that we must
form our own ideas, have free will, and not swallow
everything we hear.
But I have often noticed that they do the opposite.
I have never understood this discrepancy.
Don't laugh, friends, but it is quite logical, in the
human system, that people like the buffoon Python
accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, because I am
immensely more Cartesian than him insofar as I practice
methodical doubt (which has saved my life at least once).
Let's take the case of Python. What could be less
scientific than this guy who swallows everything?
The guy, you tell him that four days after its
first outing, the Titanic hit a flying saucer, he
swallows it,
and those who doubt, he attacks them, he humiliates
them, he harasses them, he beats them up like an
Orwellian police bob.
Incapable of questioning an idea that was instilled
in him (he read it in the newspapers) he swallows it
without even making a face.
Should we believe what scientists say? Should we
believe what the media say? For him, yes, we must
swallow everything and not think.
Personally, I am a conspiracy theorist and damn, I
love it. I think we must apply methodical doubt.
And me, when someone tells me that the Titanic hit
a flying saucer, I don't believe it at all. The ship
was poorly designed enough not to break apart in
half on its own in the middle of the ocean just
hours after it was launched.
Problem: it's too inexpressible. What will entire
nations think of us if we reveal that Royal Navy
ships break apart on their own as soon as they
are launched? We had to invert a flying saucer, and
millions of little Pythons would not only swallow
it all, but declare total war on conspiracy
theorists and other doubters.
R.H.
Let's take the case of Python. What could be less scientific than this
guy who swallows everything?
Let's take the case of Python. What could be less scientific than this
guy who swallows everything?
Should we believe EVERYTHING scientists say?
Of course not. Particularly when expressing opinions.
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal
more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic
and argument than others.” -- Douglas Adams
And when they're presenting data, consider how it fits
in with previous data. And wait for independent confir-
mation.
Consider the Gran Sasso report of FTL neutrinos. I
doubted it because it didn't fit with extended SR.
And I was right.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:29:48 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
The guy, you tell him that four days after its
first outing, the Titanic hit a flying saucer, he
swallows it,
I doubt that :-)
Le 13/08/2024 à 20:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
Should we believe EVERYTHING scientists say?
Of course not. Particularly when expressing opinions.
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal
more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic
and argument than others.” -- Douglas Adams
And when they're presenting data, consider how it fits
in with previous data. And wait for independent confir-
mation.
Consider the Gran Sasso report of FTL neutrinos. I
doubted it because it didn't fit with extended SR.
And I was right.
Yes, me too.
Although the word "doubt" is not strong enough.
Personally I laughed, and I said that the experimenter
had necessarily been wrong.
It was for me as obvious as: "We have found a whole natural
number that is between 9 and 10", or "we have finally found
a natural square that is equal to the sum of two other squares".
It was physically stupid, but it was sad to cry (and it remains
so), it shows that physicists have not understood SR correctly.
They would never have said such bullshit.
Even today, many spit on me (why not) but once in their WC-toilet,
they imagine that we will soon discover tachyons.
It's stupid.
The clowns are them, not me.
R.H.
Am Dienstag000013, 13.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Javis Orbn:
Am Dienstag000013, 13.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Javis Orbán:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/12/2024 06:46 PM, Python wrote:
Ross. You need professional medical help. FAST.
I think you're making a mockery and doing a disservice to people with
real medical problems.
correct observation, my friend. It just came to me, that "viruses" are a
capitalist sham, perpetrated by medical doctors, media and hospitals, to
simply kill humans faster.
firstly, "viruses" are NOT animals nor bacteria, to eat humans. Hence not
existent, which is the 100% proof that "viruses", vaccines and the
"danger" of CO2, are 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙨_𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩_𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮, whereas capitalist
perpetrators
of america should be arrested sent to Siberia to work for the food they
eat. Read this paper here
𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹_𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗿_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗻_𝗶𝗻_𝗞𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗸
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/vRm9kbAHMlGk
𝗨.𝗦._𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗢𝗥_𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗛𝗔𝗠_𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗝𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗗_𝗕𝗬_𝗨𝗞𝗥𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗘'𝗦_𝗣𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦_𝗞𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗞_𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/naezlhgDf3dx
𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝗗𝗜𝗗𝗡'𝗧_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽,_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗽_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗗𝗜𝗗._𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/2VwFsxkXZIMn
My theory:
the state of Israel is simply too hot, hence the Jews shall relocate to
some other and more pleasant regions.
To 'help' this development, war and trouble is needed and for this the 'enemy'.
As possible goal of this 'New Exodus' there is only one possible country
in sight: the Ukraine!
To wipe the annyoing inhabitants from that area another war is need,
which till now is going on.
To deter that stream of people from other more peaceful regions like the
UK or the USA, those regions are in trouble, too.
But how about Germany?
Germans are really nice people and really like Jews (despite rumors
saying otherwise).
Den 13.08.2024 18:29, skrev Richard Hachel:
Let's take the case of Python. What could be less scientific than this
guy who swallows everything?
He doesn't swallow what you tell him.
Maybe that's because he is able to think for himself?
Le 13/08/2024 à 17:15, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Should we believe EVERYTHING scientists say?
There is something quite strange about human beings from a behavioral
point of view. They say that we must form our own ideas, have free will,
and not swallow everything we hear.
But I have often noticed that they do the opposite.
I have never understood this discrepancy.
Don't laugh, friends, but it is quite logical, in the human system, that people like the buffoon Python accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, because I am immensely more Cartesian than him insofar as I practice methodical doubt (which has saved my life at least once).
Let's take the case of Python. What could be less scientific than this
guy who swallows everything? The guy, you tell him that four days after
its first outing, the Titanic hit a flying saucer, he swallows it, and
those who doubt, he attacks them, he humiliates them, he harasses them,
he beats them up like an Orwellian police bob.
Incapable of questioning an idea that was instilled in him (he read it
in the newspapers) he swallows it without even making a face.
Should we believe what scientists say? Should we believe what the media
say? For him, yes, we must swallow everything and not think.
Personally, I am a conspiracy theorist and damn, I love it.
I think we must apply methodical doubt.
And me, when someone tells me that the Titanic hit a flying saucer, I
don't believe it at all. The ship was poorly designed enough not to
break apart in half on its own in the middle of the ocean just hours
after it was launched.
Problem: it's too inexpressible. What will entire nations think of us if
we reveal that Royal Navy ships break apart on their own as soon as they
are launched? We had to invert a flying saucer, and millions of little Pythons would not only swallow it all, but declare total war on
conspiracy theorists and other doubters.
Le 13/08/2024 à 17:15, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :...
Should we believe EVERYTHING scientists say?
There is something quite strange about human beings from a behavioral
point of view. They say that we must form our own ideas, have free will,
and not swallow everything we hear.
Incapable of questioning an idea that was instilled in him (he read it
in the newspapers) he swallows it without even making a face.
Should we believe what scientists say? Should we believe what the media
say? For him, yes, we must swallow everything and not think.
Personally, I am a conspiracy theorist and damn, I love it.
I think we must apply methodical doubt.
And me, when someone tells me that the Titanic hit a flying saucer, I
don't believe it at all. The ship was poorly designed enough not to
break apart in half on its own in the middle of the ocean just hours
after it was launched.
Le 14/08/2024 à 10:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Dienstag000013, 13.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Javis Orbán:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/12/2024 06:46 PM, Python wrote:
Ross. You need professional medical help. FAST.
I think you're making a mockery and doing a disservice to people with
real medical problems.
correct observation, my friend. It just came to me, that "viruses" are a >>> capitalist sham, perpetrated by medical doctors, media and hospitals, to >>> simply kill humans faster.
firstly, "viruses" are NOT animals nor bacteria, to eat humans. Hence
not
existent, which is the 100% proof that "viruses", vaccines and the
"danger" of CO2, are 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙨_𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩_𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮, whereas capitalist
perpetrators
of america should be arrested sent to Siberia to work for the food they
eat. Read this paper here
𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹_𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗿_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗻_𝗶𝗻_𝗞𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗸
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/vRm9kbAHMlGk
𝗨.𝗦._𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗢𝗥_𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗛𝗔𝗠_𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗝𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗗_𝗕𝗬_𝗨𝗞𝗥𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗘'𝗦_𝗣𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦_𝗞𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗞_𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/naezlhgDf3dx
𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝗗𝗜𝗗𝗡'𝗧_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽,_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗽_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗗𝗜𝗗._𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/2VwFsxkXZIMn
My theory:
the state of Israel is simply too hot, hence the Jews shall relocate
to some other and more pleasant regions.
To 'help' this development, war and trouble is needed and for this the
'enemy'.
As possible goal of this 'New Exodus' there is only one possible
country in sight: the Ukraine!
To wipe the annyoing inhabitants from that area another war is need,
which till now is going on.
To deter that stream of people from other more peaceful regions like
the UK or the USA, those regions are in trouble, too.
(This is a joke Thomas, right?)
But how about Germany?
Germans are really nice people and really like Jews (despite rumors
saying otherwise).
Yep. Rumors.
It always bothered me that people despise Adolf Hitler so much but
never tell if they don't like the painter or the writer.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 427 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:11:48 |
| Calls: | 9,029 |
| Files: | 13,384 |
| Messages: | 6,009,098 |