For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity,
at least as taught today, was incorrect.
I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was
false, I simply said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far
from being the same thing.
Many relativistic equations are correct, but not all of them, and those
that are not, are not significantly correct.
What is very strange is that despite the ease with which I refute certain points, those who read me often get stuck in stupid refutations, like for example Python, which is a very pathognomonic case.
Faced with the problem I pose, he, like everyone else, loses his temper, insults, and says nonsense.
One of the greatest theoretical proofs that I cannot be wrong, despite everything that people will tell you (because the opposition is very
strong to the new concepts, even if they are superb and demonstrable), is
the way in which I give a number of equations where none are given or
clearly abstract equations.
A textbook case is the Langevin traveler in apparent mode (what we would
see in ultra-powerful telescopes) which I have been talking about for 40
years in a dismaying intellectual desert.
Let's take the classic case:
Let's take a look at Stella's return. What could be simpler to understand
than Stella's own time, in the example considered (Vo=0.8c, d=12al), will
be Tr=9 years for this return.
No one has ever been able to contradict, and no one will ever contradict (except the Newtonians, but with them, we won't row very far).
But what could be simpler to understand than Stella, in her frame of
reference, sees the earth (Vo=0.8c) returning towards her at Vapp=4c.
I remind you, as Jean-Pierre Python finds it hard to believe, that Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) and that those who have been contradicting me for
40 years had better go back to school.
The evidence is then dazzling for anyone who wants to abandon Newtonian
and even Einsteinian a priori. The covered distance
by land for Stella cannot be the same as the distance traveled by Stella
for Terrence (12 al).
The distance is obviously x=Vapp.Tr

x=4c*9years

So D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Or so, D'=D.[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)+cosµ.Vr/c]

It is so obvious that I will never understand how one can oppose rapid and inconsiderate refutations to everything I have been saying for 40 years,
and in particular on rotating frames of reference or uniformly accelerated frames of reference, theoretical and logical proofs in support, supporting experimental evidence too.

At this level, we are no longer in science, but in sociology, even
theology:
“We don’t want this man to rule over us.”
It's downright stupid.

R.H.

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

Den 29.03.2024 14:25, skrev Richard Hachel:

For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of
relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.

I have missed that.
I suppose you must have written a paper describing your
experiment and its results. Is it available?

I would like to include your experiment here: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

If your experiment really falsifies SR, you will have made
your place in the history of physics.

Congratulations!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 30/03/2024 à 13:20, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Den 29.03.2024 14:25, skrev Richard Hachel:

For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of

relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.

I have missed that.
I suppose you must have written a paper describing your
experiment and its results. Is it available?

I would like to include your experiment here:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

If your experiment really falsifies SR, you will have made
your place in the history of physics.

Congratulations!

I have already had my experiences for 40 years or more.

Experience, but no experiment? :-D

SR is a consistent theory.
It is only one way to falsify a consistent theory,
that is to show that the predictions of the theory
are not in accordance with measurements.

You claim to have falsified SR, so you must have made
an experiment which falsifies SR.

Or where you lying?

My theory is simple and very clear.

Indeed. And experimentally falsified.

May I remind you:

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?

Absolutely.

That's what I said.

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.

CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,

It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.

Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
very differently from what SR predicts.

Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.

It's no way you can save your theory, Richard!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
(within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's predictions.
Just one.

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

On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

SR is a consistent theory.

No.

Special Relativity is incapable of approving what Richard Hachel says,

Since experiment agrees with special relativity, it's obvious that
Richard Hachel is wrong.

If Richard Hachel says: "The apparent speed of an object moving at 0.8c,
it is 4c, if the object is moving towards me". They answer: "No, we know
it's true, but if you say it, because you're scum, they'll say it's not true."

We perform an experiment to test this to see if SR or Richard Hachel is correct, and we find that SR is correct and Richard Hachel is wrong.

All this enters into madness on their part, but into the most
intelligent of madness, that of hatred and massive refutation.

All this to block the way for anyone who says: “Hachel is right, and 9*4=36”.

So far, no experiment has been done where one could correctly state
"Hachel is right and SR is wrong." Although Hachel is correct when he
states 9*4=36, but that is not inconsistent with SR, of course.

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

W dniu 31.03.2024 o 15:36, Volney pisze:

On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" GPS and TAI
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all the serious
clocks always did.

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

W dniu 31.03.2024 o 15:33, Volney pisze:

On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

SR is a consistent theory.

No.

Special Relativity is incapable of approving what Richard Hachel says,

Since experiment agrees with special relativity

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

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

W dniu 31.03.2024 o 14:08, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

Experience, but no experiment? :-D

SR is a consistent theory.

No it's not. Its inconsistency has been proven
here dosens of time.

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

On 2024-03-31 15:06:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 31/03/2024 � 13:36, Volney a �crit :

On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
(within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's predictions.
Just one.

One will not be enough more than ten.

I think you still don't understand the human problem.

Look at what is happening today in Ukraine. Proof will not be enough to demonstrate that it is the Westerners who are seeking war with the
Russians and not the other way around.

You can put ten, twenty proofs, you won't succeed.

We won't tell you, if you turn on your TV (in France): "Putin
intervened in Ukraine, because he cannot do without Crimea
as an essential war port, because it can no longer tolerate eight years
of bombings and massacres of the Russian-speaking populations of
Ukraine, the ban on speaking Russian, the presence of thermo-nuclear
missiles on its border.

No way.

We tell you, minute after minute, on French television: "Putin is evil,
he invaded Ukraine, he will then invade Europe, and he will eat the
children in the incubators and rape all the little girls aged six
years".

I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.

That's what they tell you today on television.

And you say to me: "Give us proof that what you say about the SR is true"?

But you don't understand anything, Mac, you don't UNDERSTAND anything.

I gave cases of proof.

Usenet is your friend.

R.H.

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

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

On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 31/03/2024 à 17:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.

So we will have disagreed on everything.
But it does not matter.

That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?


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

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

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2024-03-31 15:06:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :

On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR (within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's predictions. Just one.

One will not be enough more than ten.

I think you still don't understand the human problem.

Look at what is happening today in Ukraine. Proof will not be enough to demonstrate that it is the Westerners who are seeking war with the
Russians and not the other way around.

You can put ten, twenty proofs, you won't succeed.

We won't tell you, if you turn on your TV (in France): "Putin
intervened in Ukraine, because he cannot do without Crimea
as an essential war port, because it can no longer tolerate eight years
of bombings and massacres of the Russian-speaking populations of
Ukraine, the ban on speaking Russian, the presence of thermo-nuclear missiles on its border.

No way.

We tell you, minute after minute, on French television: "Putin is evil,
he invaded Ukraine, he will then invade Europe, and he will eat the children in the incubators and rape all the little girls aged six
years".

I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.

This is a relativity discussion group, so I judge Hachel primarily on what
he says about relativity. However, if I know he's lying about some other subject, that would color my thinking, but not cause me to reject what he
says about relativity.

You, OTOH, seem to employ irrelevant issues to dismiss the main argument.
That, of course, is the easy way, but it's akin to attacking the messenger rather than the message. If you remember, you did that to me :-(

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

On 2024-04-01 11:50:15 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 01/04/2024 à 10:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

So we will have disagreed on everything.
But it does not matter.

That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?

Why use the word “lies”.

Because I know as well you do what appears on French television. Please
give a date channel and if you want anyone to believe that what you was
not a liee.

If you think I'm wrong, use the word "errors".

Not when they're deliberate.

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

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

W dniu 01.04.2024 o 14:50, gharnagel pisze:

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2024-03-31 15:06:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :

On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid

physicists > > > who don't want to do science, but the poor cock
competition?

The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.

Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with

SR > > (within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's
predictions. > > Just one.

One will not be enough more than ten.
I think you still don't understand the human problem.
Look at what is happening today in Ukraine. Proof will not be

enough to > demonstrate that it is the Westerners who are seeking war
with the > Russians and not the other way around.

You can put ten, twenty proofs, you won't succeed.
We won't tell you, if you turn on your TV (in France): "Putin >

intervened in Ukraine, because he cannot do without Crimea

as an essential war port, because it can no longer tolerate eight

years > of bombings and massacres of the Russian-speaking populations
of > Ukraine, the ban on speaking Russian, the presence of
thermo-nuclear > missiles on its border.

No way.
We tell you, minute after minute, on French television: "Putin is

evil, > he invaded Ukraine, he will then invade Europe, and he will
eat the > children in the incubators and rape all the little girls
aged six > years".

I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I
have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know
for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about
relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.

This is a relativity discussion group, so I judge Hachel primarily on what
he says about relativity.  However, if I know he's lying about some other subject, that would color my thinking, but not cause me to reject what he says about relativity.

You, on the other hand - are lying only
about the subject of the relativity. At least
here.

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

Den 31.03.2024 14:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

SR is a consistent theory.

No.

SR is mathematical consistent. Indisputable fact!

She is inconsistent and ridiculous in front of a simple doctor (me)
who tells him that there is a Langevin paradox and that no one for 120
years has succeeded in solving it.

That some simple doctor (you) finds the predictions of SR ridiculous
doesn't make SR inconsistent, it only demonstrates that the simple
doctor (you) is ignorant of elementary math and physics.

Einstein 'solved' the twin paradox in 1905. Didn't you know?

"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve
with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting
t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the
travelled clock on its arrival at A will be t⋅v²/2c² seconds slow."

(The exact result is Δt = t⋅(1−√(1 −v²/c²)), but as explained in
the paper: √(1 − v²/c²)) ≈ (1 - v²/2c²) when v²/c² << 1)

Here is another example:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf

SR predicts that the travelling
twin will age slower, which is experimentally confirmed.
No mystery, no paradox.

Here is the experimental confirmation: https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

The "twin" that travels around the Earth in the eastward
direction ages less than the 'twin' that travels in the westwards
direction, because the speed of the former is higher than the speed
of the latter, both speeds measured in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference.

It is common knowledge that one can only respond to him with hatred and insult.

One has only pointed out that his theory is experimentally falsified.
If he perceives that as hatred and insult, it's his problem.

Which is NOT scientific.

Experimental falsification of a theory is indeed scientific.



The following is an interesting study of his mind! :-D

Special Relativity is incapable of approving what Richard Hachel says,
and can only always, always, always lower its pants, which is NOT NORMAL.

If Richard Hachel says: "Stella's time is 9 years for the return", are
the physicists in their pants? And why? Because it's false? No way!
Because it's true, and they know it, and they teach it, but it would
hurt them to admit it.

If Richard Hachel says: "The apparent speed of an object moving at 0.8c,
it is 4c, if the object is moving towards me". They answer: "No, we know
it's true, but if you say it, because you're scum, they'll say it's not true."

All this enters into madness on their part, but into the most
intelligent of madness, that of hatred and massive refutation.

All this to block the way for anyone who says: “Hachel is right, and 9*4=36”.

It is to say the opposite which is inconsistent.

It's a stupid cock contest.

“We don’t want this man to rule over us.”

It's very Freudian, even on the scale of the biggest names in world
science.

BTW, Richard.
Physicists (and astronomers) are well aware of the fact that when
matter is approaching you at high speed, then the speed may appear
to be faster than c. It doesn't happen if the matter is moving right
at you along the line of sight, because then it is impossible to
measure any speed.

But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
the apparent transverse velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

This is a _very_ well known phenomenon, and I find it rather amusing
that you are so ignorant that you believe that physicists would deny
its existence.

I will repost something I wrote back in 2003.
It is about "superluminal jets" from galaxies, (look it up!)
an example of which you can see here: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/superlum/m87jet_hst_big.jpg

Matter in the jets is moving at high speed.
As this matter ploughs through the intergalactic medium (very thin gas), radiation - mostly at radio frequencies - is emitted. It is this
radiation and not the matter itself that is observed.
The stream of matter is however not very steady. It may be "blobs" of
matter in the jets which will be visible in the observed radiation.
These "blobs" are observed to move, and it is supposed that the matter
in the jets move with the same speed as the observed "blobs".

So what really is observed is the angular speed of these blobs,
from which you can calculate the transverse speed assuming you know
the distance to the source.

So let's do the calculations on a realistic case:



O * galaxy
angle of jet from A
line of sight = a /
/ jet
/
B

The observed time interval between reception of light emitted from A
and B (distance L) will be:
t_o = L/v - L*cos(a)/c
The apparent _traverse_ speed will be the apparent _traverse_ distance
divided by this time interval:
v_app = L*sin(a)/t_o = v*sin(a)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(a))

Note that v_app > c when v > c/(sin(a)+cos(a))
Note also that since (sin(a)+cos(a)) > 1 for any a < pi/2, v_app can,
as long as the jet is moving towards the observer, be > c if v is
sufficiently close to c.

For example, if a = pi/4 the apparent traverse speed is superluminal
if v > ca. 0.7*c



--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Den 01.04.2024 22:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 01/04/2024 à 21:59, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

measure any speed.

But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
the apparent transversal velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

But NO!

You are quoting a correct statement out of context, and crying NO!

Why?

Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)
If v=c and cos=0 (tranversal move), Vapp=c.

Let's stay in the real world.

The only objects moving at "relativistic speeds" we
can visually observe, are astronomical objects, like
the matter in the jets from some galaxies (from their
central black hole).

The only motion we can visually observe, is transversal motion.

So if the jet is coming right at us, we will see the matter
at exactly the same point at the centre of the galaxy, the apparent
speed of the matter is zero.

But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
the apparent transversal velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.


My explanation frm a post written back in 2003: ===============================================

About "superluminal jets":
--------------------------
an example of which you can see here: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/superlum/m87jet_hst_big.jpg


The "basic effect" is simple:
An object is moving with a speed v straight towards the observer O.

O ------------------------------B--------A
|<- L ->|
The time interval between the observation of light emitted from
A and B will be the time interval between the emissions minus
the time the light uses to go from A to B:
t_o = L/v - L/c
The "apparent speed" will be the distance between A and B divided by
the observed time interval:
v_app = L/t_o = v/(1-v/c)
Note that v_app > c when v > c/2.

However, the above is not possible to observe in the real world,
of the obvious reason that you will have no way of observing the
distance L.
So what is observed?

Matter in the jets are moving at high speed.
As this matter ploughs through the intergalactic medium (very thin gas), radiation - mostly at radio frequencies - is emitted. It is this
radiation and not the matter itself that is observed.
The stream of matter is however not very steady. It may be "blobs" of
matter in the jets which will be visible in the observed radiation.
These "blobs" are observed to move, and it is supposed that the matter
in the jets move with the same speed as the observed "blobs".

So what really is observed is the angular speed of these blobs,
from which you can calculate the transversal speed assuming you know
the distance to the source.

So let's redo the calculations above on a more realistic case:



O * galaxy
angle of jet from A
line of sight = a /
/ jet
/
B

The observed time interval between reception of light emitted from A
and B (distance L) will be:
t_o = L/v - L*cos(a)/c
The apparent _transversal_ speed will be the apparent _transversal_
distance divided by this time interval:
v_app = L*sin(a)/t_o = v*sin(a)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(a))

Note that v_app > c when v > c/(sin(a)+cos(a))
Note also that since (sin(a)+cos(a)) > 1 for any a < pi/2, v_app can
as long as the jet is moving against the observer be > c if v is
sufficiently close to c.

For example, if a = pi/4 the apparent transversal speed is superluminal
if v > ca. 0.7*c





--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Den 01.04.2024 22:03, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 01/04/2024 à 21:58, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:

Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.

Can you show me a little fact of it.

Again? I have done it several times, but OK:

It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.

Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
in the Large Hadron Collider is  6927⋅c.

Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.

Je ne prends pas la peine de répondre.

Ca n'en vaut malheureusement pas la peine.

R.H.

Does this mean that you have accepted that
your theory is falsified?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

On 3/31/2024 10:54 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 31/03/2024 à 13:33, Volney a écrit :

On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Since experiment agrees with special relativity, it's obvious that
Richard Hachel is wrong.

Your remark is biased.

Only toward the facts and what the facts mean.

I'll let you think about why.

Because I want reality.

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

On 4/1/2024 7:50 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 01/04/2024 à 10:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

So we will have disagreed on everything.
But it does not matter.

That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?

Why use the word “lies”.
If you think I'm wrong, use the word "errors".

If it's deliberate, it's a lie. Since you ignore criticism of your
"errors" I think they are deliberate, thus they are lies.

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

On 3/31/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :

On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
(within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's
predictions. Just one.

One will not be enough more than ten.

It would take just one repeatable experiment to prove SR to be wrong.
Including verification of some of your claims as they are inconsistent
with SR. So far this hasn't happened.

I think you still don't understand the human problem.

Look at what is happening today in Ukraine.

Ukraine has nothing to do with SR or your claims.

All I will say is that you are repeating russian propaganda here.
Remember, the first casualty in any war is the truth. And russia always
lies.

And you say to me: "Give us proof that what you say about the SR is true"?

That's how science works. Come up with a hypothesis and provide evidence
that it's valid. (actually come up with a disproof which invalidates it)

But you don't understand anything, Mac, you don't UNDERSTAND anything.

I understand how science works.

I gave cases of proof.

No you did not. You posted many claims which others has told you are
wrong, and why they are wrong. You ignore them and repeat your claims.
Also no such thing as proof in physics, only disproof.

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

On 4/1/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 01/04/2024 à 21:58, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?

Your falsified theory is obviously much better than
the theory that's never falsified.
Right? :-D

Je ne prends pas la peine de répondre.

Ca n'en vaut malheureusement pas la peine.

It's not nice to tell Paul to take a long walk off a short pier.

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

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 17:21, Volney pisze:

On 3/31/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :

On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid
physicists who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition? >>>>

The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
(within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's
predictions. Just one.

One will not be enough more than ten.

It would take just one repeatable experiment to prove SR to be wrong.

Only such an idiot can believe such an
idiotic lie, stupid Mike.
And in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your insane religion
"improper" clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

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

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:

You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

And a pathological liar.

All the worshippers of your idiot guru are.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

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

Le 02/04/2024 à 21:19, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :

Richard Hachel wrote:

So D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Or so, D'=D.[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)+cosµ.Vr/c]

You will be condemned to forever wasting your time on this (like in the article you posted) as long as you refuse to learn physics.

--
Jan

I think you don't understand the problem,
and that this blindness can last for decades.

Everything that happens here, and on physics forums in general, keeps
coming back to the same thing, no one makes the effort to understand. Absolutely no one.

For various reasons, the most important of which is conformism, and
sometimes, a little, arrogance.

It's as if I were saying: "You know, friends, you shouldn't add
relativistic speeds, like you add Newtonian speeds. For example, if you
add a speed of 0.5c to a speed of 0.5c, you do not get v=c, but v=0.8c"
and I was told "You don't know anything about elementary mathematics, you
have to learn elementary mathematics, and you would see that 0.5+0.5=1. "

Don't laugh friends, that's exactly what's happening everywhere.

They tell me: you have to learn physics.

It's surreal.

R.H.

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

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 23:39, Python pisze:

Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 02/04/2024 à 21:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:

You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

And a pathological liar.

All the worshippers  of your idiot guru are.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is
known on physics forums for being a clown.
He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of
special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he doesn't
master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the world's best
critic in physical and mathematical science.

Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.

You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Is "for any element of
the domain" clause still confusing you?

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

W dniu 03.04.2024 o 07:39, Python pisze:

Le 03/04/2024 à 07:15, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 23:39, Python pisze:

Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 02/04/2024 à 21:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:

You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

And a pathological liar.

All the worshippers  of your idiot guru are.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is
known on physics forums for being a clown.
He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of
special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he
doesn't master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the
world's best critic in physical and mathematical science.

Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.

You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Is "for any element of
the domain" clause still confusing you?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)

"Le terme est concurrencé par celui de fonction, bien que celui-ci
désigne parfois plus spécifiquement les applications dont le but est un ensemble de nombres et parfois, au contraire, englobe plus largement les relations pour lesquelles chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ est relié à au plus un élément de l'ensemble d'arrivée."

Now shut the fuck up, idiot...

Still confused; you're such an idiot.
Well, under the link you provided -
click blue "fonction" word and read:

En mathématiques, une fonction permet de définir un résultat (le plus souvent numérique) pour chaque élément d’un ensemble appelé domaine.

Of course, whatever you'll read, being
stupid is not curable.

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

Den 02.04.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Let's stay in the real world.

The only objects moving at "relativistic speeds" we
can visually observe, are astronomical objects, like
the matter in the jets from some galaxies (from their
central black hole).

The only motion we can visually observe, is transversal motion.

So if the jet is coming right at us, we will see the matter
at exactly the same point at the centre of the galaxy, the apparent
speed of the matter is zero.

But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
the apparent transversal velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

No. It's impossible.

There are _many_ "superluminal" jets where the matter in
the jet appear to have a speed faster than c.

“There will therefore be an impassable speed limit which will extend to
all particles, objects, or laws of physics.”
                Doctor Richard Hachel November 9, 1985 Conference in
Wroclaw (Polska).

Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
can exceed c. So what?

You cannot have an observable speed (Vo) greater than c.

I have no idea what you mean by "observable speed".
No speed of an massive object or particle can be greater than c.

But you can observe (measure) that a "knot" in
a picture of a jet does indeed move faster than c.
The knot on the picture is not a massive object, it is
a picture of the transverse projection of the mass in the knot.

Look up Messier 87:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87

Here is a Hubble picture (again): https://www.aavso.org/sites/default/files/images/m87-hst.jpg
A few facts:
The distance to the galaxy M87 is 54 Mly (mega light year)
The length of the jet is 5 kly (5000 light years).

From Wiki:
"In pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1999,
the motion of M87's jet was measured at four to six times
the speed of light. This phenomenon, called superluminal
motion, is an illusion caused by the relativistic velocity
of the jet."

And I will add that this illusion is also caused by a relatively
small angle between the jet and the observer's line of sight.

If we assume that two pictures was taken with one year
between them, this means that a "knot" (blob) was
_measured_ to have moved ~ 5 ly between the pictures,
so the speed appear to be ~ 5c.

Note that what is measured is the angular velocity of the "knot".
When the distance is known, the apparent transverse velocity can
be calculated.

Which is also synonymous with any speed measured by a transverse observer.

A transverse observer? :-D

If the jet is transverse to the observer's line of sight then
the observed (measured) speed is simply the speed of the matter
in the knot.

So what? What's your point?

For apparent speeds, you can have, if µ is negative (µ=0 to -180°), apparent speeds
greater than that of light.

So what was is it you claimed was impossible?


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

W dniu 03.04.2024 o 22:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
can exceed c. So what?

So, even your idiot guru had to finally abandon
this nonsense in his GR shit.

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

W dniu 03.04.2024 o 23:01, Python pisze:

Fact is that "starting set" ("ensemble de départ") and domain ("domaine de definition") are, even today, not assumed to be identical in the French educational system. You can whine as much as you want, it is a fact.

Of course, the reason why you're confused
about the properties of a quite simple
English word "function", and making idiotic
statemennts about it - may be caused by
your French education, why not?

So, have you already learnt what a
"function" is? Still confused about
the clause "for any element of the domain"?
("domain", not "starting set", poor stinker).

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

Den 04.04.2024 02:08, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 03/04/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 03.04.2024 o 22:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
can exceed c. So what?

The following seems to be a response to my statement above.

The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
all events occurring
at the same time ; or again, being characterized by the set of all
physical phenomena
taking place at the same time; we should be able, at least considering
all the components
fixed being in a given inertial system, to speak of absolute
simultaneity, of synchronization
cosmic, or common calendar -- these terms then being likely to acquire
real significance
physical tion -- if we could, without it varying, transpose the
universal simultaneity specific to a
particular observer to all the other inertial observers present in this
same frame of reference.
   It would be enough to find any signal, or any action, by which a
body A could
interact instantly with a body B, that is to say by means of information propagating infinitely
quickly, so that this notion of absolute simultaneity can be
experimentally proven.
   We could then say that the action induced by body A was instantly transmitted to body B, or
that the action produced by body A was carried out at the same time as
its detection by body B, and that it
exists, de facto, between A and B, a sort of reciprocal and absolute simultaneity.
    We could also imagine a round trip signal carried out over the distance separating A from B, and carried out at
means of infinitely rapid information, such that the departure and
return times of
information is simultaneous. It would easily come to mind that if the
two watches A and B are
well tuned, the notion of general coexistence of the things of the
universe in perfect simultaneity would be
thus demonstrated.
    However, this proof does not exist.

What's your point with using so many words to state
the bleeding obvious?

Of course there is no such thing as "absolute simultaneity".

    We know that a body can act on another body at a distance, for example in the form of a wave.
electromagnetic, in the form of a mechanical shock transmitted along a
rigid rod, or under the
form of a gravitational interaction, but we have never found a signal
that is infinitely fast,
or remote action that is instantaneous. It rather seems, in fact, that
there exists, in nature, a kind
impassable speed limit, which we will find in any Galilean reference
frame considered, and which will
extend to all particles and all properties of physics.

So you confirm my statement quoted above above.

But you never addressed what you claimed was impossible
in my posting.

Try again?

03.04.2024 Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 02.04.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Let's stay in the real world.

The only objects moving at "relativistic speeds" we
can visually observe, are astronomical objects, like
the matter in the jets from some galaxies (from their
central black hole).

The only motion we can visually observe, is transverse motion.

So if the jet is coming right at us, we will see the matter
at exactly the same point at the centre of the galaxy, the apparent speed of the matter is zero.

But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
the apparent transverse velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

No. It's impossible.

There are _many_ "superluminal" jets where the matter in
the jet appear to have a speed faster than c.

Please explain why you wrote: "No. It's impossible."


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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