I notice a website where they talk about the relativistic cage paradox.

And it says: "If the animal is smaller than the cage, it can be in the
cage; but if the cage is smaller, it cannot be in the cage."

This ties in with the paradox of the train and the tunnel.

But what is very interesting is that lots of people, each as uneducated as
the next,
want to give their opinion.
Most admit that they don't understand anything (they are the most honest)
and a few attempt explanations that are often stupid.

It's obviously very saddening, but not so much to see idiots talking
stupidly, no.

The sad thing is here, on the Usenet forums, in the sense that we are
going to spit on the geniuses (let's not be vulgar and disastrously
humble) who know how to respond, with unequaled precision, beauty and
logic.

This is saddening.

R.H.

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

Le 18/06/2024 à 12:06, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

I notice a website where they talk about the relativistic cage paradox.

link?

And it says: "If the animal is smaller than the cage, it can be in the
cage; but if the cage is smaller, it cannot be in the cage."

link? Nothing can be find either in French or English from this quote.
You are well known for forging quotes for decades, by the way.

This ties in with the paradox of the train and the tunnel.

Which is easily solved. It illustrates well the relativity of
simultaneity. A more interesting one is the bug rivet paradox.

[snip idiotic whining]

The pie is on the road.

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

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 13:24, Python pisze:

Le 18/06/2024 à 12:06, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

I notice a website where they talk about the relativistic cage paradox.

link?

And it says: "If the animal is smaller than the cage, it can be in the
cage; but if the cage is smaller, it cannot be in the cage."

link? Nothing can be find either in French or English from this quote.
You are well known for forging quotes for decades, by the way.

This ties in with the paradox of the train and the tunnel.

Which is easily solved. It illustrates well the relativity of
simultaneity. A more interesting one is the bug rivet paradox.

No more interesting than paradoxes developed
by any other religion.

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

Le 18/06/2024 à 14:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 13:24, Python pisze:

Le 18/06/2024 à 12:06, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

I notice a website where they talk about the relativistic cage paradox.

link?

And it says: "If the animal is smaller than the cage, it can be in
the cage; but if the cage is smaller, it cannot be in the cage."

link? Nothing can be find either in French or English from this quote.
You are well known for forging quotes for decades, by the way.

This ties in with the paradox of the train and the tunnel.

Which is easily solved. It illustrates well the relativity of
simultaneity. A more interesting one is the bug rivet paradox.

No more interesting than paradoxes developed
by any other religion.

What? One the "best logicians Humanity ever had" (LOL) is not
interested? How sad...

So go back to your room, Wozniak. Nurses will be there at 4pm
for your daily treatment.

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

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 14:08, Python pisze:

Le 18/06/2024 à 14:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 13:24, Python pisze:

Le 18/06/2024 à 12:06, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

I notice a website where they talk about the relativistic cage paradox. >>>

link?

And it says: "If the animal is smaller than the cage, it can be in
the cage; but if the cage is smaller, it cannot be in the cage."

link? Nothing can be find either in French or English from this quote.
You are well known for forging quotes for decades, by the way.

This ties in with the paradox of the train and the tunnel.

Which is easily solved. It illustrates well the relativity of
simultaneity. A more interesting one is the bug rivet paradox.

No more interesting than paradoxes developed
by any other religion.

What? One the "best logicians Humanity ever had" (LOL) is not
interested? How sad...

Whatever you imagine, the mumble of your
bunch od idiots is not at all more interesting
than the delusions of other religious maniacs.

So go back to your room, Wozniak. Nurses will be there at 4pm
for your daily treatment.

See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
of your insane guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart of
barking, lying and slandering. But you'll
do what you can for your moronic church -
that's what it trains its doggies for,
after all.




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

Le 18/06/2024 à 14:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 14:08, Python pisze:

Le 18/06/2024 à 14:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 13:24, Python pisze:

Le 18/06/2024 à 12:06, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

I notice a website where they talk about the relativistic cage
paradox.

link?

And it says: "If the animal is smaller than the cage, it can be in
the cage; but if the cage is smaller, it cannot be in the cage."

link? Nothing can be find either in French or English from this quote. >>>> You are well known for forging quotes for decades, by the way.

This ties in with the paradox of the train and the tunnel.

Which is easily solved. It illustrates well the relativity of
simultaneity. A more interesting one is the bug rivet paradox.

No more interesting than paradoxes developed
by any other religion.

What? One the "best logicians Humanity ever had" (LOL) is not
interested? How sad...

Whatever you imagine, the mumble of your
bunch od idiots is not at all more interesting
than the delusions of other religious maniacs.

As far as I know religions didn't predict correctly the outcome of
experiments, behaviour of devices or astronomic measures. SR and
GR do.

So go back to your room, Wozniak. Nurses will be there at 4pm
for your daily treatment.

See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
of [snip profanities] to be not even consistent,

You did nothing of that kind. Your argument about definition
of a second in Einstein's times is ridiculous. Even compared
to your other blunders.

[snip whining]

Like "doctor" Hachel you've never convinced ANYONE that your
claims are correct. How come Maciej?

By the way, you can now use all the time made free by not being
interested by SR in trying to figure out how and why the concept
of function emerged in History and how it has been defined here
and there. Good luck!

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

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 15:15, Python pisze:

Le 18/06/2024 à 14:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 14:08, Python pisze:

Le 18/06/2024 à 14:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 13:24, Python pisze:

Le 18/06/2024 à 12:06, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

I notice a website where they talk about the relativistic cage
paradox.

link?

And it says: "If the animal is smaller than the cage, it can be in >>>>>> the cage; but if the cage is smaller, it cannot be in the cage."

link? Nothing can be find either in French or English from this quote. >>>>> You are well known for forging quotes for decades, by the way.

This ties in with the paradox of the train and the tunnel.

Which is easily solved. It illustrates well the relativity of
simultaneity. A more interesting one is the bug rivet paradox.

No more interesting than paradoxes developed
by any other religion.

What? One the "best logicians Humanity ever had" (LOL) is not
interested? How sad...

Whatever you imagine, the mumble of your
bunch od idiots is not at all more interesting
than the delusions of other religious maniacs.

As far as I know religions didn't predict correctly the outcome of experiments,

Neither you do. But, of course, you can scream
that you did and slander those who deny.
Any religion can do that.



behaviour of devices or astronomic measures. SR and

GR do.

So go back to your room, Wozniak. Nurses will be there at 4pm
for your daily treatment.

See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
of [snip profanities] to be not even consistent,

You did nothing of that kind. Your argument about definition
of a second in Einstein's times is ridiculous.

Yes, I did. I have pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of
your idiot guru. And a fanatic piece
of shit waving arms, screaming "ridiculus!",
barking and slandering - changes nothing.
Really.

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

Den 18.06.2024 12:06, skrev Richard Hachel:

I notice a website where they talk about the relativistic cage paradox.

And it says: "If the animal is smaller than the cage, it can be in the
cage; but if the cage is smaller, it cannot be in the cage."

What's the point with stating such an obviously true statement?

This ties in with the paradox of the train and the tunnel.

A scientist with a doctorate and three Nobel Prizes in physics
will know that there is no paradox, of course.

Do you think it is a paradox?

If so, is it because you, Doctor Hachel, were lying when you
claimed to have a doctorate and three Nobel Prizes?


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Le 18/06/2024 à 13:24, Python a écrit :

Which is easily solved. It illustrates well the relativity of
simultaneity. A more interesting one is the bug rivet paradox.

C'est un paradoxe à la con.

Un de plus.

Je te l'ai déjà dit : "Les hommes jettent de la poussière en l'air, et quand elle retombe, ils se plaignent
de ne plus y voir".

Il ne peut pas y avoir de paradoxe. C'est universellement impossible.
S'il y en a, c'est QU'ON A MAL POSE LA QUESTION.

Respirez, soufflez...

Dans l'exemple, on considère que le premier observateur est dans le référentiel de l apièce, et qu'il voit arriver le rivet. Mais où se
trouve l'observateur?

Il est dans la pièce, et, il voit un rivet plus court.

l'=l.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Donc, il ne faut pas tergiverser, et tout de suite, deux grandes claques
dans la gueule au connard
qui veut faire le singe avec ses rivets (on en deviendrait même violent,
je te laisse contacter le con qui a fait ce pdf) : le rivet est plus court
que la pièce. POINT FINAL.

Bon après, tu vas forcément avoir les jérémiades à la con des
physiciens relativistes, genre "Hachel il fait chier", "Hachel il nous
fait de l'ombre".... Pffff...

J'ai dit POINT FINAL.

Mais les connards, ils continuent, ils veulent faire chier.

Ils disent "Gnagnagnagna, oui mais dans le référentiel du rivet, c'est
la pièce qui est plus courte..."

Mais quelle bande d'abruuuutis!!!

Ils veulent faire chier...

MAIS NON! La pièce n'est pas plus courte, c'est simplement que
l'observateur placé dans le référentiel du rivet voit l'ensemble du dispositif est dévié d'un angle alpha', et qu'il l'oublie.

Encore que même s'il l'oublie pas il va continuer à appliquer une
simple contraction qui n'est pas géométriquement correcte. Mais bon.

En fait, le rivet garde sa taille initiale, mais le dispositif est PLUS
LONG (et non plus court).

Il va donc y avoir concordance parfaite entre les deux observateurs.

Il ne faut par croire que l'axe de visée des deux observateurs est
confondu. C'est peut-être ça qui provoque une partie du paradoxe qu'ils
se créent.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?J-iBq2g17F9hRHTmAe2Ndta40JY@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Ici, Ox' est plus LONG que Ox.

R.H.

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