Le 27/08/2024 à 20:09, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

So we can sum it up:

Since the speed of light is slow (c), the light will use 1 second
to go from the Moon to Richards telescope.
So the picture of the watch in the telescope will show 00:00'07"
when the lunar watch shows 00:00'08".

But since the speed of light is infinite and the picture of
the watch in the telescope show 00:00'07", the lunar watch
is really 00:00'07" at the very moment when the watch on
Richard's table is 00:00'08".

Well explained, Richard!

It is all clear when we take into account the POSITION of
the observer and the PERSONAL REALITY of his hyperplane
of present time.

Is this a joke or did you actually understand and approve of what I have
been saying for 40 years?

Because this is the first time a human being has told me that he has understood.

It is not common in the history of humanity.

27 août 2024 : a miracle on Earth?

R.H.

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

Den 27.08.2024 20:34, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 27/08/2024 à 20:09, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

So we can sum it up:

Since the speed of light is slow (c), the light will use 1 second
to go from the Moon to Richards telescope.
So the picture of the watch in the telescope will show 00:00'07"
when the lunar watch shows 00:00'08".

But since the speed of light is infinite and the picture of
the watch in the telescope show 00:00'07", the lunar watch
is really 00:00'07" at the very moment when the watch on
Richard's table is 00:00'08".

Well explained, Richard!

It is all clear when we take into account the POSITION of
the observer and the PERSONAL REALITY of his hyperplane
of present time.

Is this a joke or did you actually understand and approve of what I have
been saying for 40 years?

Because this is the first time a human being has told me that he has understood.

It is not common in the history of humanity.

27 août 2024 : a miracle on Earth?
R.H.

It's no joke, I do indeed understand you.

When I take into account your POSITION and the dual
PERSONAL REALITY of your hyperplane of present time,
then the speed of light is both finite and infinite
(and vice versa) in the correct Hachelian space-time
with universal anisochrony.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Le 27/08/2024 à 21:39, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 27.08.2024 20:34, skrev Richard Hachel:

When I take into account your POSITION and the dual
PERSONAL REALITY of your hyperplane of present time,
then the speed of light is both finite and infinite
(and vice versa) in the correct Hachelian space-time
with universal anisochrony.

Take a close look at the following little diagram.
We place a point A, and we draw in representation inside a slice x,y,z,
its own present time hyperplane.
It is the 3D hyperplane of present time, of universal simultaneity
specific to A, as everyone has their own.
But this hyperplane, in the universe, because the universe is made this
way is NOT "nestable" from A to B, from B to C, etc...
Thus, we will represent in yellow, the hyperplane of B, BUT SEEN BY A.
We then see something very surprising for the novice of RR, the present is
not something "global", "common to all".
For A, we notice that B and C are part of its present moment, and A, B,
and C, for A, are simultaneous events, which occur at the same moment,
which are part of its universal present.

But the converse is not true, for B, A does not yet exist, it is not in
the same present moment as C, but it is in the past of A.
The present of B, the simultaneity of B, if we understand it well, is A'.

Thus, this horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in
this telescope, if I manage to remove this multi-secular abstract idea,
which is the "observable speed of light Vo=c", I understand that they are
given to me live, in instantaneous transmission in what is my
real-present.

But that the reverse is not true. For this galaxy that I see in the full universal present (mine), I will only exist in a few billion years. And if
I send it a message today, although I see it, live, it will only receive
it in two billion years if it is 1 billion light-years away. The speed of perception IS instantaneous, but the speed of diffusion is Vo=0.5c.

The true universal constant is therefore not c, but c/2, the escape
velocity of light; Vo=c is only the observable transverse velocity of
light.
Breathe, blow, I have known it for 40 years.
But for novices, it is hard to swallow.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?2hjjdokckxPswv9vzkiMV5N_680@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=2hjjdokckxPswv9vzkiMV5N_680@jntp>

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

Le 28/08/2024 à 20:26, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 26.08.2024 13:02, skrev Richard Hachel:

There is a one-second time difference between
00:00:08 and 00:00:07", between my watch and
the watch on the moon.
This is because of the speed of light, which is quite slow,
and takes at least a second to reach me.
And so that explains everything.

This is the reality, as you know!
You have correctly explained that you see the watch in the telescope
delayed by 1 second, so you _know_ that the lunar watch shows 00:00'08"
like the watch on your table.
You _know_ the watches are synchronous in the ECI frame.

Of course it is a bad joke that the speed of light is both
finite and infinite, and that you can make a clock change
its reading by looking at it.

You are babbling nonsense.

If I look at a cylinder like this presentation of chips, I do not observe
the same geometric figure in my field of vision depending on how I look at
it.
Sometimes I SEE a circle, and my camera photographs a circle,
sometimes I SEE a rectangle, and my camera photographs a rectangle.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KEAdeNaSGPhdUQc32DGS2HcmhqA@jntp/Data.Media:1>

The same goes for measuring the speed of light, which is nothing other
than the way I study geometry, universal anisochrony.
Depending on how I position myself, I do not measure the same thing.
Relativity is ALSO that.


R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=KEAdeNaSGPhdUQc32DGS2HcmhqA@jntp>

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

Den 27.08.2024 23:39, skrev Richard Hachel:

Of course it's a joke!

Take a close look at the following little diagram.

Let's rather look at what you have said about the synchronisation
of clocks

Den 24.08.2024 14:24, skrev Richard Hachel:

What happens if I set two identical watches on my table
and I slowly move one of them towards the moon.
(let's say in three weeks to avoid a v²/c² ratio very different from 1)?

The clocks will still be synchronous (within 1 μs).

Den 24.08.2024 14:24, skrev Richard Hachel:

I notice in my telescope that when my watch marks
00:00'08" the lunar clock is desynchronized and marks 00:00'07".

Den 25.08.2024 14:34, skrev Richard Hachel:

The beautiful thing is to say that "photons move at c".
The genius is to say that transactions are instantaneous,
and that it is men's ignorance of the correct space-time
that creates this illusion.
It is really 00:00'07" over there, at the very moment
when it is 00:00'08" here.

If the speed of light was infinite, then you would see
the watch in the telescope show 00:00'08" like the watch on your table.
The clocks are synchronous in the ECI frame.

But why do you claim that the speed of light is infinite
when you know it's not?

Den 26.08.2024 13:02, skrev Richard Hachel:

There is a one-second time difference between
00:00:08 and 00:00:07", between my watch and
the watch on the moon.
This is because of the speed of light, which is quite slow,
and takes at least a second to reach me.
And so that explains everything.

This is the reality, as you know!
You have correctly explained that you see the watch in the telescope
delayed by 1 second, so you _know_ that the lunar watch shows 00:00'08"
like the watch on your table.
You _know_ the watches are synchronous in the ECI frame.


Of course it is a bad joke that the speed of light is both
finite and infinite, and that you can make a clock change
its reading by looking at it.


You are babbling nonsense.

We place a point A, and we draw in representation inside a slice x,y,z,
its own present time hyperplane.
It is the 3D hyperplane of present time, of universal simultaneity
specific to A, as everyone has their own.
But this hyperplane, in the universe, because the universe is made this
way is NOT "nestable" from A to B, from B to C, etc...

See? Nonsense!

Breathe, blow, I have known it for 40 years.

:-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Le 29/08/2024 à 13:21, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

I won't bother to comment your claim that the speed of light
between a watch and yourself depends on "how you position yourself".

That is indeed what I said.

Due to universal anisochrony, the speed of light depends
on the position of the observer.

It is obvious that if it moves from left to right, transversely, or from
right to left, the speed of light will be the same.

Let's say that I have not measured it yet, that I just know that it is
very fast, so I cannot say precisely what it is.

But AT LEAST, can I suppose that it would be very surprising if it moved
faster in one direction or another. Which would be an absurdity in a
concept of refutation of absolute or privileged referent.

If I can measure this transverse speed from A to B (i.e. without possible Doppler effect that could distort my measurement) I will find
Vo=3.10^8m/s.

And then, it's true, if I practice in the other direction, I will still
find
Vo=3.10^8m/s.

It is equal in both directions, and it is logical that it should be.

I will now turn my device AB by 90°, and I will place myself this time,
in a position perpendicular to what I was previously, and again, I will calculate the transverse speed of light from A to B.

Bingo!

From A to B, or from B to A, I will note Vo=3.10^8m/s

Tears of joy will then slowly flow down my pink cheek:
I have just proven something invariant.

Except that I am an idiot who has not understood anything at all, and who
has not noticed the enormous bias that I have just described here.

Test:
Did you understand the huge bias that ruined 120 years of relativistic
work, and produced stupid concepts, stupid equations and stupid hatreds?

[ ] Yes, I understood the bias.
[ ] No, I didn't understand anything at all, and I know that Hachel is the biggest moron on earth.

R.H.

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

Den 28.08.2024 20:57, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 28/08/2024 à 20:26, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Of course it is a bad joke that the speed of light is both
finite and infinite, and that you can make a clock change
its reading by looking at it.


You are babbling nonsense.

If I look at a cylinder like this presentation of chips, I do not
observe the same geometric figure in my field of vision depending on how
I look at it.
Sometimes I SEE a circle, and my camera photographs a circle,
sometimes I SEE a rectangle, and my camera photographs a rectangle.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KEAdeNaSGPhdUQc32DGS2HcmhqA@jntp/Data.Media:1>

The same goes for measuring the speed of light, which is nothing other
than the way I study geometry, universal anisochrony.
Depending on how I position myself, I do not measure the same thing. Relativity is ALSO that.

I won't bother to comment your claim that the speed of light
between a watch and yourself depends on "how you position yourself".

-------------

So let us look at another equally stupid claim of yours:

You are talking about a proton in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:

Don't tell me you don't understand that the proton rotates
11.25 million times per second in the laboratory frame
but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.

This is called time dilation.

In other words:
| While the proton rotates once in the laboratory frame,
| it rotates 6933 times in the proton frame.
|
| This is called time dilation.


This statement of yours prove that your 'theory' is inconsistent.
(Or rather, it proves that you have no 'theory', but are babbling utter nonsense.)

It is true that a proton in the LHC moves around the circle
≈ 11.25 thousand times per second, which means that measured
in the laboratory frame, the proton moves once around the circle
in T ≈ 90 μs.
Since γ = 7460, the proper time of the proton per orbit is τ ≈ 12 ns.

So a correct statement would be:
| Measured in the laboratory frame the orbital time is T ≈ 90 μs.
| Measured in the proton frame the orbital time is τ ≈ 12 ns.
|
| This is called time dilation.

The proton moves once around the circuit in the lab frame,
while the lab moves once around the proton in the proton frame.

But Richard Hachel claims that the proton moves 6933 times
around the cycle while it moves once around the cycle!

------------

Richard, you will have to flee again. Chicken! :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Den 29.08.2024 13:53, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 29/08/2024 à 13:21, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

I won't bother to comment your claim that the speed of light
between a watch and yourself depends on "how you position yourself".

That is indeed what I said.

Due to universal anisochrony, the speed of light depends
on the position of the observer.

We are talking about the speed of light from the moon to
you who have positioned yourself at the Earth.

| Den 26.08.2024 13:02, skrev Richard Hachel:

There is a one-second time difference between 00:00:08 and 00:00:07",

between my watch and the watch on the moon.

This is because of the speed of light, which is quite slow, and takes

at least a second to reach me.

And so that explains everything.

You _know_ that this speed is c, so the light will use
ca. 1 second to reach you, which indeed explains everything:

You see the watch in the telescope showing 00.00'.07"
_because_ the lunar watch shows 00.00'.08" and is
synchronous with the watch on your table.

This case is now closed!
You have lost! The speed of light is never infinite!

<snip nonsense>

You are fleeing again, as I knew you would.

Let us look at another claim of yours:

You are talking about a proton in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

| Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:

Don't tell me you don't understand that the proton rotates 11.25

million times per second in the laboratory frame but 78 million times
per second in the proton frame.

This is called time dilation.

In other words:
| While the proton rotates once in the laboratory frame,
| it rotates 6933 times in the proton frame.
|
| This is called time dilation.


This statement of yours prove that your 'theory' is inconsistent.
(Or rather, it proves that you have no 'theory', but are babbling utter nonsense.)

It is true that a proton in the LHC moves around the circle
≈ 11.25 thousand times per second, which means that measured
in the laboratory frame, the proton moves once around the circle
in T ≈ 90 μs.
Since γ = 7460, the proper time of the proton per orbit is τ ≈ 12 ns.

So a correct statement would be:
| Measured in the laboratory frame the orbital time is T ≈ 90 μs.
| Measured in the proton frame the orbital time is τ ≈ 12 ns.
|
| This is called time dilation.

The proton moves once around the circuit in the lab frame,
while the lab moves once around the proton in the proton frame.

But Richard Hachel claims that the proton moves 6933 times
around the cycle while it moves once around the cycle!

------------

Richard, you will have to flee again. Chicken! 😂
Because you have realised that you were wrong, haven't you?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

XPost: fr.sci.physique

Le 29/08/2024 à 10:57, Python a écrit :

Le 29/08/2024 à 08:10, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :

1. *If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at
A synchronizes with the clock at B*.

Mékilékon, mékilécon!

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

De plus en plus con.

Mais c'est pas vrai merde?

Le jour où les serpents crétins auront des ailes, le Python sera chef d'escadrille.

Mais t'as TOUJOURS rien compris, ou tu fais semblant pour emmerder le
monde?

DEUX horloges ne peuvent être synchronisées de façon parfaite que
placées au même endroit,
car le temps en A n'est pas "forcément" le même en B.
La notion de temps présent étant relative à chaque examinateur (notion
de temps présent en forme d'hyperplan PROPRE et à usage ultra-unique).

C'est d'ailleurs ce que semble dire Einstein au début de son paragraphe (relis bien).

Mais aussitôt ça dérive dans l'horreur : "nous allons quand même
accorder les montres".

Il vient de dire, et pour une fois avec juste raison, que c'était
peut-être une tentative absurde.

Seule une procédure M permet de donner un système cohérent d'hyperplan
de temps présent général
(et encore, seulement INTRA-référentiel). Cette procédure (qui est
celle d'Einstein sans le savoir)
est basée sur la vitesse transversale de la lumière, et sur la notion de simultanéité d'un point M placé idéalement loin dans une quatrième dimension spatiale imaginaire.

J'ai expliqué ça mille fois.

Continue à faire le singe.

R.H.

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

Le 29/08/2024 à 15:12, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 29.08.2024 13:53, skrev Richard Hachel:

But Richard Hachel claims that the proton moves 6933 times
around the cycle while it moves once around the cycle!

Je n'ai jamais dit ça.

J'ai dit que le proton se déplaçait 6933 fois plus vite que ne
pouvaient l'enregistrer nos horloges locales basées sur une
synchronisation de type M.

Ce n'est pas en déformant mes propos que tu vas mieux les comprendre.

Toi aussi, tu veux faire le guignol?

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?hHYfFgkbdBvgZLrYH_0oYRVYtRo@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

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

Den 29.08.2024 13:53, skrev Richard Hachel:

It is obvious that if it moves from left to right, transversely, or from right to left, the speed of light will be the same.

Let's say that I have not measured it yet, that I just know that it is
very fast, so I cannot say precisely what it is.

But AT LEAST, can I suppose that it would be very surprising if it moved faster in one direction or another. Which would be an absurdity in a
concept of refutation of absolute or privileged referent.

If I can measure this transverse speed from A to B (i.e. without
possible Doppler effect that could distort my measurement) I will find Vo=3.10^8m/s.

And then, it's true, if I practice in the other direction, I will still
find
Vo=3.10^8m/s.

It is equal in both directions, and it is logical that it should be.

I will now turn my device AB by 90°, and I will place myself this time,
in a position perpendicular to what I was previously, and again, I will calculate the transverse speed of light from A to B.

Bingo!

From A to B, or from B to A, I will note Vo=3.10^8m/s

Tears of joy will then slowly flow down my pink cheek:
I have just proven something invariant.

Except that I am an idiot who has not understood anything at all, and
who has not noticed the enormous bias that I have just described here.

What are you babbling about?

It is thoroughly experimentally verified that the speed of light
is isotropic, constant and invariant.
The number c = 299792458 m/s follows from the definition of the units.

Only an ignorant moron would claim:
"the speed of light depends on the position of the observer."


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Le 29/08/2024 à 15:35, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 29.08.2024 13:53, skrev Richard Hachel:

Only an ignorant moron would claim:
"the speed of light depends on the position of the observer."

C'est ce que j'ai dit, et ce que je maintiens.

Je ne conseille pas de me contredire, sous peine de passer au final, pour
un crétin.

Il est absolument clair que des personnes sensées et réfléchies vont
tout de suite comprendre que si je dis ça, c'est que j'en ai dans la
culotte, et que c'est FORCEMENT celui qui ne comprend pas qui est la
crétin, et pas celui qui décrit les choses.

Je parle de la vitesse apparente de la lumière. Je ne parle pas de sa
vitesse réelle Vr, ni de sa vitesse observable (forcément transversale)
Vo.

Avec c'est vrai l'idée déboussolante pour le lecteur de RR pussillanime
que, chez bon docteur Hachel, et en notion de physique relativiste : "Esse
est percipi".

L'essence n'est rien d'autre que le directement perçu.

Les preuves expérimentales le montreront forcément.

Forcément.

R.H.

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

Le 29/08/2024 à 15:45, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 29/08/2024 à 15:35, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 29.08.2024 13:53, skrev Richard Hachel:

Only an ignorant moron would claim:
"the speed of light depends on the position of the observer."

C'est ce que j'ai dit, et ce que je maintiens.

Je ne conseille pas de me contredire, sous peine de passer au final,
pour un crétin.

Il est absolument clair que des personnes sensées et réfléchies vont
tout de suite comprendre que si je dis ça, c'est que j'en ai dans la culotte, et que c'est FORCEMENT celui qui ne comprend pas qui est la
crétin, et pas celui qui décrit les choses.

This is strange: on a sample of all people who have read your idiocies
for more than thirty years it happens that 100% of them are "cretins".

A sane person would consider that maybe it is because he/she is claiming something that is absolutely idiotic. Not you :-)

So you will continue to be perceived as the idiot you actually are.

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

Le 29/08/2024 à 15:57, Python a écrit :

This is strange: on a sample of all people who have read your idiocies
for more than thirty years it happens that 100% of them are "cretins".

A sane person would consider that maybe it is because he/she is claiming something that is absolutely idiotic. Not you :-)

So you will continue to be perceived as the idiot you actually are.

Tu n'as jamais été crétin, toi?

Un homme normal SAIT qu'il a souvent été crétin, et va chercher ce qui
est juste, ce qui est vrai, ce qui est cohérent.

Quand j'était tout petit, si, si, j'ai été tout petit, j'étais même
tout mignon avec les cheveux blonds,
et que je regardais le ciel nocturne, je voyais des étoiles.

Je ne me posais pas la question, en regardant Sirius, si la lumière de
cette étoile était instantanée,
ou s'il lui fallait 8 à 9 ans pour me parvenir.

J'étais un petit garçon inculte et très crétin.

Ce n'est pas bien ou mal d'être crétin, c'est juste un fait.

Ce qui est étrange, c'est que si je dis à quelqu'un : "Ton accident de
la route t'as quand même laissé de graves séquelle, tu es sacrément boiteux", il ne me contredira pas.

Mais si je dis "ton esprit est sacrément boiteux, quel beau crétin tu
fais", il ne va pas être content.

C'est pourtant un fait, surtout chez les physiciens relativistes et les
hommes politiques.

Et puis un jour, on m'a rendu ENCORE PLUS CON.

On m'a fait croire que le Titanic pouvait rester une semaine à flot sans
se retrouver vite sous 4000 mètres, on m'a fait croire ceci et cela.

On m'a fait croire que la lumière, c'était des petites particules qui sautaient comme des puces des étoiles jusque sur la terre en courant
très vite (3.10^8m/s), et que peut-être, Sirius était déjà morte
depuis plusieurs années...

Mais on est tous dans le même lot, les mecs.

Et ceux qui ont tout gobé de ce qu'ils CROIENT savoir sont des crétins
qui s'ignorent.

C'est comme les vaccins, tu crois réellement que ceux qui les fabriquent
se soucient de la santé des gens ?

Mais NON. Il faut penser aux actionnaires, et à la prochaine piscine
qu'on va se payer.

Tu crois réellement ça?

T'es quand même pas aussi crétin?

En fait on est tout des crétins, certains moins que d'autres.

Il y a ceux qui essayent de s'en sortir en réfléchissant et les
fainéants.

Les fainéants lisent Science et Vie.

R.H.

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

On 2024-08-29 15:00:35 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 29/08/2024 à 15:57, Python a écrit :

This is strange: on a sample of all people who have read your idiocies
for more than thirty years it happens that 100% of them are "cretins".

A sane person would consider that maybe it is because he/she is claiming
something that is absolutely idiotic. Not you :-)

So you will continue to be perceived as the idiot you actually are.

Tu n'as jamais été crétin, toi?

Un homme normal SAIT qu'il a souvent été crétin, et va chercher ce qui est juste, ce qui est vrai, ce qui est cohérent.

[...]

Qəribədir ki, siz zibilinizi polyak dilində yerləşdirmək üçün GoogleTranslate-dən necə istifadə etməyi öyrənmisiniz, onu ingilis dilində necə yerləşdirməyi hələ başa düşməmisiniz.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

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

Den 29.08.2024 15:36, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 29/08/2024 à 15:12, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 29.08.2024 13:53, skrev Richard Hachel:

But Richard Hachel claims that the proton moves 6933 times
around the cycle while it moves once around the cycle!

I never said that.

I said that the proton was moving 6933 times faster than our
local clocks based on M-type synchronization could record.

I am sure a proton can move 6933 times faster than a clock,
but that wasn't what you said. :-D

This is what you said:

Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:

Don't tell me you don't understand that the proton rotates
11.25 thousand times per second in the laboratory frame but
78 million times per second in the proton frame.

This is called time dilation.

In other words:
| While the single proton rotates once in the laboratory frame,
| the same single proton rotates 6933 times in the proton frame.
|
| This is called time dilation.


This statement of yours prove that your 'theory' is inconsistent.
(Or rather, it proves that you have no 'theory', but are babbling utter nonsense.)

It is true that a proton in the LHC moves around the circuit
≈ 11.25 thousand times per second, which means that measured
in the laboratory frame, the proton moves once around the circuit
in T ≈ 90 μs.
Since γ = 7460, the proper time of the proton per orbit is τ ≈ 12 ns.

So a correct statement would be:
| Measured in the laboratory frame the orbital time is T ≈ 90 μs.
| Measured in the proton frame the orbital time is τ ≈ 12 ns.
|
| This is called time dilation.

The proton moves once around the circuit in the lab frame,
while the lab moves once around the proton in the proton frame.

But Richard Hachel claims that the proton moves 6933 times
around the cycle while it moves once around the cycle!


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Den 29.08.2024 15:45, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 29/08/2024 à 15:35, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 29.08.2024 13:53, skrev Richard Hachel:

Only an ignorant moron would claim:
"the speed of light depends on the position of the observer."

And the same goes for the following:

Doctor Richard Hachel explaining that "the speed of light depends
on the position of the observer" because he has it in his pants:

That's what I said, and what I stand by.

I do not advise contradicting myself, otherwise you
will end up looking like a moron.

It is absolutely clear that sensible and thoughtful people
will immediately understand that if I say that,
it is because I have it in my pants, and that it is
NECESSARILY the one who does not understand who is the moron,
and not the one who describes things.
I'm talking about the apparent speed of light.
I am not talking about its real speed Vr,
nor its observable (necessarily transverse) speed Vo.
With it is true the disconcerting idea for the pusillanimous
reader of RR that, with good Doctor Hachel, and in the notion
of relativistic physics: "Esse est percipi".
The essence is nothing other than the directly perceived.

The experimental evidence will inevitably show this.

Necessarily.

Hilarious, no? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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