Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the explanations
given to you.
Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the explanations given to you.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/Data.Media:1>
I laughed.
R.H.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/Data.Media:1>
I laughed.
R.H.
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.
[snip nonsense]
When Römer observes the moons of Jupiter, his measurements are correct:
[snip more nonsense]
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.
You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is
neither fair nor pretty.
I am saddened to see how we can define the concepts so badly, and I understand why we have been stuck for 120 years without producing much (except me).
What differentiates physicists from me is that for me, there are
not two effects, one relativistic, the other classical Doppler.
For me, there is only one logical effect.
Not two.
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.
When Römer observes the moons of Jupiter, his measurements are correct:
but he will say: "When you cut a dog's legs, it no longer comes when you
hit its bowl to eat: cutting a dog's legs affects its eardrums".
I would prefer that we speak of internal Doppler effect, and external
Doppler effect. The terms would be more accurate.
Longitudinal Doppler effect, I understand, and it is not necessarily
wrong, but transverse Doppler effect, it is a bit ridiculous as a denomination (as if there were a transverse external Doppler effect). It
is absurd.
The problem is internal and reciprocal and is diffused to all external emission, it is not "transverse".
R.H.
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:44, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
[snip nonsense]
When Römer observes the moons of Jupiter, his measurements are correct:
This is the first of ten "lame physics things" addressed here by the brilliant Angela Collier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-d4ujp_DgY
[snip more nonsense]
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:44:15 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.
You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
The classical Doppler shift is lambda' = lambda/(1 +/- v). The
relativistic
Doppler equation is lambda' = lambda sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 +/- v/c).
Which,
of course, is lambda' = lambda sqrt[(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) for approaching
and
lambda' = lambda sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c) for receding.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
It is not a distance effect, and definitely not LC.
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is
neither fair nor pretty.
Nope. The transverse Doppler effect is simply time dilation. Your
equation has longitudinal Doppler built into it.
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.
Nope.
When Römer observes the moons of Jupiter, his measurements are correct:
but he will say: "When you cut a dog's legs, it no longer comes when you
hit its bowl to eat: cutting a dog's legs affects its eardrums".
I would prefer that we speak of internal Doppler effect, and external
Doppler effect. The terms would be more accurate.
Nope. There are only longitudinal and transverse.
Le 07/08/2024 16:47, Python a crit :
Le 07/08/2024 16:44, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a crit :
[snip nonsense]
When Rmer observes the moons of Jupiter, his measurements are correct:
This is the first of ten "lame physics things" addressed here by the brilliant Angela Collier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-d4ujp_DgY
[snip more nonsense]
Quand Rmer (ce n'est pas de sa faute, je pense que tout le monde aurait ragi comme lui, y compris ma grandeur cleste) a constat un truc
bizarre (les lunes de Jupiter tournent plus vite quand on s'approche et
moins vite quand on s'loigne), il a tout de suite pens un effet
Doppler d la vitesse de la lumire.
Cette proposition intressante, mais fausse, a compltement fait dvier
le courant de la pense humaine.
Rmer n'a pas compris que c'tait l la dcouverte du premier effet relativiste : il a pens un simple Doppler traditionnel : un peu comme
la transmission du son dans l'air.
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/Data.Media:
I laughed.
R.H.
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.
You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither >> fair nor pretty.
It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence
of clear concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal
mass, and other such joys. You do like Hachel, you keep it
simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.
I will never understand all this madness.
It is not mass that is relative, but speed, THEREFORE the quantity
of movement, therefore energy.
The notion of rest mass is useless at all, except to make physicists
look like Laurel and Hardy type comedians.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:28:27 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence
of clear concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal
mass, and other such joys. You do like Hachel, you keep it
simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.
Physicists maintain that mass is invariant, so you're preaching
Le 07/08/2024 22:22, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit :ia:
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a crit :
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a crit :
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the >> >> > explanations given to you.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/Data.Med
I laughed.
R.H.
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate, >> > too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length >> > contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.
You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither >> fair nor pretty.
It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses. They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light, because the terminology was already current,
Jan
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.
You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn
on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
Le 07/08/2024 à 17:58, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :...
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.
Nope.
Mais bordel, vous allez être poli, oui?
Je vous dis, bordel de merde, que :
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.
Franchement le comportement de certains commence à me casser les couilles.
Mais merde!!!
Répondez moi que ce n'est pas ce que dis la théorie, mais ne me dites
pas que ce que je dis n'est pas vrai ou que je me trompe.
Ce comportement est intolérable.
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:06, Python a écrit :
Moreover you are lying: people are not objecting to your fantasies
by only saying that it is not what SR says (which is nevertheless
a perfectly valid objection) but by pointing out fallacies and
contradictions in your own words.
You lies, Jean-Pierre Messager, you lies.
"Mais tu sais que tu mens".
You are the one who is lying by claiming that people criticize what I
say because it is fantasy.
Not at all, it is generally enough to read a little of an author to know
or sense whether it is fantasy or not.
No, no, no, that is not it at all: if people criticize, it is because it
does not go in the direction of their convictions or their teachings,
period.
You are highly delusional Richard. It takes only about half a page to
prove that your claims about accelerated frames of reference are:
- logically unsound (invoking tautologies as conditions, claiming
that a frame dependent property implies a frame independent one)
- contradicting previous claims you had on the twin paradox
- contradicting the principle of Relativity
Nothing there is invoking SR in any ways. Your lie is exposed,
again.
You have a psychotic mental bloc (in addition to be a complete
idiot) that prevent you to even consider that something you pull
out of you a** with no justification at all can be wrong.
This is called "arrognorance". On top of that you have no intellectual integrity and you are a pathological liar. Just like your buddy Donald
J. Trump.
Python wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 19:34, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Mais merde!!! Répondez moi que ce n'est pas ce que dis la théorie, mais >>> ne me dites pas que ce que je dis n'est pas vrai ou que je me trompe.
Ce comportement est intolérable.
1. Posting in French in an English-speaking group is abusive.
certainly for me, I barely undrestand engilsh. French is lika foreigner spoken language to me. I am from Greece.
𝗨𝗦_𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻_𝗶𝗻_‘𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁’_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄
Washington should cut off the flow of arms to Kiev’s “neo-Nazi” forces, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov has said https://www.%72%74.com/russia/602315-antonov-us-weapons-kursk/
talking to US?? this man is stupid. Year 2024. Don't remember fucking
Nuland already?? Blown up maritime energy pipelines by nazi nato etc, etc
and etc??
US must rein in ‘terrorist client’ Ukraine, Israel, England, France, Belgium, Germany, Canada, Australia, Nederland, Morrocco,
Nigeria............
What is with this guy ? Stop smoking or sniffing US propaganda man... US stands for terrorism. US is the main sposor of terrorism across the world with ISRAEL...... Playing stupid hey ?
The USA and it's citizens love¹ to strike schools, hospitals, and homes killing civilians. Also look at Gaza - a major US love¹ project.
¹ In the new world order speech "kill" has been redefined as "love".
Le 08/08/2024 à 13:41, Python a écrit :
You are highly delusional Richard. It takes only about half a page to
prove that your claims about accelerated frames of reference are:
- logically unsound (invoking tautologies as conditions, claiming
that a frame dependent property implies a frame independent one)
- contradicting previous claims you had on the twin paradox
- contradicting the principle of Relativity
Nothing there is invoking SR in any ways. Your lie is exposed,
again.
You have a psychotic mental bloc (in addition to be a complete
idiot) that prevent you to even consider that something you pull
out of you a** with no justification at all can be wrong.
This is called "arrognorance". On top of that you have no intellectual
integrity and you are a pathological liar. Just like your buddy Donald
J. Trump.
Please stop talking nonsense on forums, you're not even funny anymore.
You don't even know how to use words anymore.
Tautology, truism: evidence that does not need to be demonstrated. Tautologies can be very useful in theoretical relativity.
Sometimes tautologies or truisms require a little mathematical research
but they still retain their unalterable force.
For example, saying that there are no two natural squares
one of which is double the other, or one of which is triple the other.
In relativity, there are also useful truisms, for example:
"Two conjoined events will be conjoined in all possible frames of
reference".
Or "Two identical watches placed in the same place and in the same
stationary frame of reference will have the same chronotropy and will
mark the same time if they need to measure a universal event".
On the other hand, I did not say that two separate watches, even
stationary ones,
mark the same time. I only said that they beat at the same speed because
they are stationary and therefore have the same chronotropy. That is a tautology.
Where it gets complicated is when physicists want to be smart and say:
"If they are in the same inertial frame of reference, they
mark the same time at the same present moment, that is a tautology, a truism". And there, precisely, no. They are making a colossal error in relativistic concept.
your claims have been proven
WRONG and your LIES have been exposed. PERIOD.
Moreover you are lying: people are not objecting to your fantasies
by only saying that it is not what SR says (which is nevertheless
a perfectly valid objection) but by pointing out fallacies and
contradictions in your own words.
Le 08/08/2024 à 14:10, Python a écrit :
your claims have been proven
WRONG and your LIES have been exposed. PERIOD.
You lies.
You lies.
This is not an English sentence.
[same off topic idiotic rant]
Python wrote:
Same "nim-shifing troll" aka Deury Echevarría wrote:
[same off topic idiotic rant]
Report resent.
Python wrote:
"nym-shifting troll" aka Gilbert Guérin wrote:
Python wrote:abuses for a single case :-)
paganini.bofh.team will be teared down.
not true,
Python wrote:
"nym-shifting troll" aka Gilbert Guérin wrote:
Python wrote:abuses for a single case :-)
paganini.bofh.team will be teared down.
not true
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:28:27 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 22:22, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : >>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:the
Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/Data.Media:explanations given to you.
appropriate,
I laughed.
R.H.
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"length
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your >>>> > Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if >>>> > it were.
You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is
neither
fair nor pretty.
It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear
concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.
You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you
turn
on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.
Give it up, Richard. What you post here and on other threads has no
relation to anything. You are debating exclusively the chimeras
of your imagination, your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full
of endless reflections of self-made nonsense.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:28:27 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 22:22, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : >>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/Data.Media:
Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the >>>> >> > explanations given to you.
I laughed.
R.H.
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate, >>>> > too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length >>>> > contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your >>>> > Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if >>>> > it were.
You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is
neither
fair nor pretty.
It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear
concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.
You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you
turn
on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.
Give it up, Richard. What you post here and on other threads has no
relation to anything. You are debating exclusively the chimeras
of your imagination, your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full
of endless reflections of self-made nonsense.
I will never understand all this madness.
Exactly. You are running in circles constantly and nothing for
you makes sense in this domain. That's fine. Not everyone has to
be a physicist. I am not a virtuoso pianist and I can live with
that awareness extremely comfortably and well.
Human beings are both idiots and pedants.
No, it's you.
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it becomes
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan
Le 09/08/2024 à 22:07, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problembecomes
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan
It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology, philosophy, politics, scientific theory).
Prove to me that a single equation or a single concept that I have given
is not mathematically coherent,
or prove to me that a single thing that I have said can be
experimentally
rejected.
I have no worries about the battles that may be made against me, since
they are already won in advance on the theoretical point (the RR is mathematically absurd from the outset if you use apparent speeds even in
a simple Langevin, it therefore has no chance of being true as taught).
Similarly, the concept of direct-live is absolutely obvious if we
understand that instantaneous information transport is possible in
certain geometric conditions, that is to say longitudinal in the source-receiver direction.
The future will show that I am right.
....
"is universal anisochrony physical? or, "is there a relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches by change of reference frame?
We do not answer questions, we attack man.
This is not scientific.
R.H.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 9:02:41 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 09/08/2024 à 22:07, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
becomes
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of
convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb
a tree,
it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” -- Albert Einstein
It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology,
philosophy, politics, scientific theory).
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for the PTB to
come around. But it didn't happen until experimental evidence
prevailed.
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around. But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.
Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:29:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around. But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.
Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.
Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:09, gharnagel a écrit :
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:29:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around. But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.
Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.
Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))
It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound "arguments".
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:09, gharnagel a écrit :
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:29:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around. But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.
Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.
Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))
It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound "arguments".
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:09, gharnagel a écrit :
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:29:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around. But it didn't happen until experimental evidence prevailed.
Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.
Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))
It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound "arguments".
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:14, Python a écrit :
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:09, gharnagel a écrit :
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:29:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around. But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.
Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.
Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))
It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".
Ah, te voilà, toi?
Je te croyais disparu sous la claque que tu t'es prise, et qui portait
sur Nostradamus.
Je t'ai demandé d'expliquer le quatrain (ce que j'ai fait, et qui n'a
rien à voir avec tes conneries de Louis XIV) et de me montrer si, avec
tes immenses talents d'historiens ou de critique, tu pouvais me prouver
que cela avait été écris avant 1660.
Magnes toi un peu les couilles, au lieu de faire le con sur usenet.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:13:59 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:09, gharnagel a écrit :
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:29:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around. But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.
Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.
Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))
It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".
Yep, I often give him the benefit of the doubt and give him either
option. It's a conundrum to determine which one is worse. If he's
a liar AND God exists, then he goes to hell. So it's better to be
stupid. OTOH, if God doesn't exist, it's worse to be stupid.
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 18:27, gharnagel pisze:
Yep, I often give him the benefit of the doubt and give him either option. It's a conundrum to determine which one is worse. If he's
a liar AND God exists, then he goes to hell. So it's better to be stupid. OTOH, if God doesn't exist, it's worse to be stupid.
It's amusing that such a piece of lying
shit is believing God, you know.
Sure, Harrie, your lies won't be punished cause
you're lying for a just cause.
How about your lie of GPS clocks readings?
When reading of the one from Earth will be
2024-08-31 17:00:00,000000000- what will
be the reading of the one from the
satellite? Numbers, please.
Still no answer, Harrie? Of course.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:42:55 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 18:27, gharnagel pisze:
Yep, I often give him the benefit of the doubt and give him either
option. It's a conundrum to determine which one is worse. If he's
a liar AND God exists, then he goes to hell. So it's better to be
stupid. OTOH, if God doesn't exist, it's worse to be stupid.
It's amusing that such a piece of lying
shit is believing God, you know.
Wozzie is projecting again :-))
Sure, Harrie, your lies won't be punished cause
you're lying for a just cause.
No such thing. Wozzie is projecting again, believing
HIS lies are in a "just" cause.
How about your lie of GPS clocks readings?
When reading of the one from Earth will be
2024-08-31 17:00:00,000000000- what will
be the reading of the one from the
satellite? Numbers, please.
Still no answer, Harrie? Of course.
I answered, but Walnut-brain Wozzie is too stupid
to understand. He's dissembling again, asking what
the reading FROM the satellite is, not the reading
AT the satellite.
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:56, gharnagel a écrit :
...
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.
Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)
My employers are not as certain as you are,
Speaking of engineering - do you often start
your project from shouting "common sense is a
collection of prejudices!!!!"
poor slandering piece of shit.
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:56, gharnagel a écrit :
...
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.
Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:56, gharnagel a écrit :
...
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.
Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)
My employers are not as certain as you are,
Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?
Who are your employers by the way :-D ?
Speaking of engineering - do you often start
your project from shouting "common sense is a
collection of prejudices!!!!"
This is not quite a starting point, but it may make
perfect sense in a lot of situations. You should know.
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:24, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:56, gharnagel a écrit :
...
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.
Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)
My employers are not as certain as you are,
Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?
Somehow.
Who are your employers by the way :-D ?
Speaking of engineering - do you often start
your project from shouting "common sense is a
collection of prejudices!!!!"
This is not quite a starting point, but it may make
perfect sense in a lot of situations. You should know.
Like?
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:24, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:56, gharnagel a écrit :
...
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.
Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)
My employers are not as certain as you are,
Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?
Somehow.
Maybe because you are not an engineer but a liar?
Who are your employers by the way :-D ?
Speaking of engineering - do you often start
your project from shouting "common sense is a
collection of prejudices!!!!"
This is not quite a starting point, but it may make
perfect sense in a lot of situations. You should know.
Like?
You should know.
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.
My employers have different opinion,
poor piece of fanatic slandering shit.
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:31, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:24, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:56, gharnagel a écrit :
...
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.
Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)
My employers are not as certain as you are,
Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?
Somehow.
Maybe because you are not an engineer but a liar?
No.
This is far the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational thinking more than once.
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:31, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:24, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:07, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:56, gharnagel a écrit :
...
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.
Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)
My employers are not as certain as you are,
Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?
Somehow.
Maybe because you are not an engineer but a liar?
No.
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.
My employers have different opinion,
Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:26, Richard Hachel a écrit :
I don't give a sh*t on this new stupid hobby of yours. I would,
anyway, be concerned if I lived in Saint-Izan-de-Soudiac and a
local country Doctor was fond of this kind of demented nonsense.
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:24, Python pisze:
poor stinker.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 9:02:41 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 09/08/2024 22:07, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a crit :
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problembecomes
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb
a tree,
it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." -- Albert
Einstein
It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology, philosophy, politics, scientific theory).
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for the PTB to
come around.
But it didn't happen until experimental evidence
prevailed.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 9:02:41 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Again, I don't know what you mean by "direct-live" neither do I know
what you mean by "certain geometric conditions" -- but I doubt that "instantaneous information transport" can be achieved.
gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 9:02:41 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 09/08/2024 à 22:07, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
becomes
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of
convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb
a tree,
it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." -- Albert
Einstein
You have a verifiable source for that of course?
It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology, >>> philosophy, politics, scientific theory).
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for the PTB to
come around.
Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.
Einstein 1905 (relativity) had an immediate impact
with those who mattered. (Planck, Lorentz, Abraham, Poincaré, etc.)
They saw that a fundamental breakthrough had been achieved,
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 9:02:41 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
"apparent speed" is tenuous. To me, it means an optical illusion, which
has no place in solving relativity problems. Velocity is the correct
term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where t2 and t1 are
read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and x1, respectively,
as the object whose velocity is meing measured passes those points.
It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
"apparent speed" is tenuous. To me, it means an optical illusion, which
has no place in solving relativity problems. Velocity is the correct
term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where t2 and t1 are
read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and x1, respectively,
as the object whose velocity is meing measured passes those points.
Le 10/08/2024 à 15:02, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Again, I don't know what you mean by "direct-live" neither do I know
what you mean by "certain geometric conditions" -- but I doubt that "instantaneous information transport" can be achieved.
It is realized universally every day.
This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in this telescope, I perceive them because, precisely, it is about instantaneous transmission of information.
This is what we call direct-live.
If someone could breathe a little and blow, and no longer conceive the
world stupidly,
that is to say as taught by physicists who have understood nothing at
all about Poincaré's transformations and where that should have led
them, rather than inventing an abstract Minkowskian and ridiculous
geometry, then we could perhaps fecilely carry out tests of
instantaneous transmission of information, thanks, perhaps, to games
of mirrors and polarizing glasses. A bit like Aspect had done.
R.H.
It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term "apparent speed" is tenuous. To me, it means an optical illusion,
which has no place in solving relativity problems. Velocity is the
correct term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where
t2 and t1 are read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and
x1, respectively, as the object whose velocity is meing measured
passes those points.
This is a magnificent definition, and its simplicity and truth deserve
to be taught in all high schools in the world.
I'm not kidding.
Now once this is taught, and well understood by the students, they
will be able to solve lots of problems with railways or highways,
and even be able to time the final of the Olympic 100 meters.
The formula you give is simply magnificent...
BUT...
But then Richard Hachel arrives once again, and his unfortunate habit
of behaving like a genius of humanity, and he will say: "You are doing Newtonian physics, guys, very beautiful Newtonian physics, and, in
this case, let yourself be taught by Maciej, who also does excellent Nestonian physics. Forget relativistic physics."
In truth, if this equation keeps a certain reality for proper times
(tau), it becomes unusable for improper times, unless, like Hachel,
we write Vo, and no longer v, in relativistic equations.
Why?
Anisochrony, guys, ANISOCHRONY!!!
In Hachelian relativity (the best theoretician of RR since Poincaré, Einstein and Minkowski thrown in the trash,
although I am not anti-Germanic),
we cannot add, subtract, count, times with watches even intertial,
stationary between them, if they are placed in different places.
This results not in a TRUE measurement, but in an OBSERVABLE
measurement.
The only true measurement can only be made by a single watch (tau).
If this is done with the watch of the mobile
[Conflation of stationary (Newtonian) observers with mobile
observers deleted].
As a relativistic reminder:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
It is realized universally every day.
This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in this
telescope, I perceive them because, precisely, it is about instantaneous
transmission of information.
Doesn't happen. Ever. There's always time delay due to speed of light. Telescopes look into the past of what they see. And the moon you see is
more than a second old. Even the horse is older.
This is what we call direct-live.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 20:08:21 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2) [A]
As a relativistic reminder:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Nope. Only the relativistic velocity composition equation is
necessary (Equation [A]), which comes directly from the LTEs:
dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
dt' = gamma(dt - vdx/c^2)
dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v)/(1 - vdx/dt/c^2)
Le 10/08/2024 à 23:32, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
instantaneousIt is realized universally every day.
This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in this telescope, I perceive them because, precisely, it is about
transmission of information.
Doesn't happen. Ever. There's always time delay due to speed oflight.
Telescopes look into the past of what they see. And the moon you seeis
more than a second old. Even the horse is older.
This is what we call direct-live.
I beg you to stop being an idiot and writing nonsense.
This forum is already rotten with guys who come to talk to us about
Ukraine, Trump, and other off-topic stuff in relativity,
if in addition, one of the celestial lights of relativity (me) is
criticized badly, we will not get out of it.
I repeat:
"This horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in this telescope, are given to me live, without an intermediary, and by instantaneous transfer of information".
The answers I get, which are like: "the speed of light means that we
cannot observe things instantly, and even some stars may be dead today"
are particularly stupid.
They show the collective decay of current physics.
One day, we will laugh at such answers because science will progress.
But today, I am saddened by it.
R.H.
Le 10/08/2024 à 23:32, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 20:08:21 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
As a relativistic reminder:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2) [A]
Nope. Only the relativistic velocity composition equation is
necessary (Equation [A]), which comes directly from the LTEs:
dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
dt' = gamma(dt - vdx/c^2)
dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v)/(1 - vdx/dt/c^2)
Absolutely, but...
And y? And z?
But that's not what I'm talking about!
I'm talking about the notion of universal anisochrony, and the fact
that, very strangely, if we observe transverse motions,
we can never measure a speed greater than c.
But that in the longitudinal direction, and everything proves it, both
theory and experiment, we can observe things live.
There is a geometry of space-time that is real, and lots of others
(including Minkowski's that are not).
You give me the equation for adding longitudinal relativistic speeds as
if I didn't know it, are you kidding?
No, only do I know it, but I can give it to you in general observable
form, in general real form or in vector form.
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 23:35:40 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
What is u.U?
You always try to run before you can walk.
Le 10/08/2024 18:26, Richard Hachel a crit:
Le 10/08/2024 18:14, Python a crit :
Le 10/08/2024 18:09, gharnagel a crit:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:29:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.08.2024 o15:02, gharnagel pisze:
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around. But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.
Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.
Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))
It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".
Ah, te voil, toi?
Je te croyais disparu sous la claque que tu t'es prise, et qui portait
sur Nostradamus.
Je t'ai demand d'expliquer le quatrain (ce que j'ai fait, et qui n'a
rien voir avec tes conneries de Louis XIV) et de me montrer si, avec
tes immenses talents d'historiens ou de critique, tu pouvais me prouver
que cela avait t cris avant 1660.
Magnes toi un peu les couilles, au lieu de faire le con sur usenet.
[for non French-speaking readers: M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand is
babbling some unclear claims about Nostradamus' "predictions" here]
I don't give a sh*t on this new stupid hobby of yours. I would,
anyway, be concerned if I lived in Saint-Izan-de-Soudiac and a
local country Doctor was fond of this kind of demented nonsense.
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:47, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational >>>>> thinking more than once.
My employers have different opinion,
Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement.
It is absolutely impossible to damage your reputation, given the
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:47, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational >>>> thinking more than once.
My employers have different opinion,
Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement.
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 11:22, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:47, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving
rational
thinking more than once.
My employers have different opinion,
Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement.
It is absolutely impossible to damage your reputation, given the
bottles of vodka you lie about
Le 11/08/2024 à 12:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 11:22, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 10.08.2024 o 19:47, Python pisze:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving
rational
thinking more than once.
My employers have different opinion,
Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement.
It is absolutely impossible to damage your reputation, given the
bottles of vodka you lie about
Seriously, assuming you are drunk when posting nonsensical rant is
actually better for your reputation than assuming you are not.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 23:35:40 +0000, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:...
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines. Doing so is just being a
stuffed shirt.
W dniu 11.08.2024 o 12:16, Python pisze:
Le 11/08/2024 à 02:11, gharnagel a écrit :
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 23:35:40 +0000, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand...
wrote:
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two
bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines. Doing so is just being a
stuffed shirt.
I didn't know the expression "stuffed shirt", thanks! You are absolutely
right!
"a smug, conceited, and usually pompous person" (Merriam-Webster
dictionnary)
This applies perfectly to doctor "Hachel" Lengrand. He is very bad in
basic math,
And speaking of basic math, it's always
good to remind that your idiot guru had
to announce it false, as it didn't want
to fit his moronic postulates.
Le 11/08/2024 à 02:11, gharnagel a écrit :
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 23:35:40 +0000, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:...
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two
bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines. Doing so is just being a
stuffed shirt.
I didn't know the expression "stuffed shirt", thanks! You are absolutely right!
"a smug, conceited, and usually pompous person" (Merriam-Webster dictionnary)
This applies perfectly to doctor "Hachel" Lengrand. He is very bad in
basic math,
Most of Nostradamus's "predictions" are so vague and unclesr that you
can interpret them any way you like. However, there is one that stands
out:
L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roy d'effrayeur
Ressusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois
Avant après Mars règner par bonheur.
Lines 2 to 4 are as unclear as everything else that Nostradamus wrote,
but line 1 is interesting, as it gives a very precise date, the 7th
month of 1999, far in the future for Nostradamus, but fairly recent for
us. What could it refer to? For the simple-minded fantasists he could
be predicting the death of Hassan 2, King of Morocco, but if you ask
what event of July 1999 could Nostradamus possibly have predicted, the
only rational answer is the eclipse of the sun on 11th August 1999. In
his time there was enough astronomical knowledge and methods of
calculation to predict an eclipse in 1999. Before you object that
August is not the 7th month, bear in mind that the Gregorian calendar
was introduced some time after Nostradamus.
Drifting even further from the topic, today "nonante" is regarded as
typical of Belgian French, but apparently it was more widely used in Nostradamus's time.
Le 11/08/2024 à 02:11, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
What is u.U?
You always try to run before you can walk.
:))
Not u.U
But cosµ.U and sinµ.U
µ is a greek letter denoting an angle.
R.H.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 7:29:31 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.
Le 11/08/2024 à 15:16, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 7:29:31 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.
? ? ?
R.H.
Le 11/08/2024 à 10:55, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
Most of Nostradamus's "predictions" are so vague and unclesr that you
can interpret them any way you like. However, there is one that stands
out:
L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roy d'effrayeur
Ressusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois
Avant après Mars règner par bonheur.
Lines 2 to 4 are as unclear as everything else that Nostradamus wrote,
but line 1 is interesting, as it gives a very precise date, the 7th
month of 1999, far in the future for Nostradamus, but fairly recent
for us. What could it refer to? For the simple-minded fantasists he
could be predicting the death of Hassan 2, King of Morocco, but if you
ask what event of July 1999 could Nostradamus possibly have predicted,
the only rational answer is the eclipse of the sun on 11th August
1999. In his time there was enough astronomical knowledge and methods
of calculation to predict an eclipse in 1999. Before you object that
August is not the 7th month, bear in mind that the Gregorian calendar
was introduced some time after Nostradamus.
Drifting even further from the topic, today "nonante" is regarded as
typical of Belgian French, but apparently it was more widely used in
Nostradamus's time.
For now I think it is very likely that Nostradamus is a crook, contrary
to what Stinker Python says.
I add this: To the question, master, how to interpret your prophecies? Nostradamus answered: First, you must destroy them.
Two possible interpretations.
1. It is bullshit for suckers, you must burn it.
2. First, you must destroy the text which means nothing in itself.
Which would mean that textually, word for word, the text is
incomprehensible and completely idiotic.
Let's take the last word here "happiness", Nostradamus did not write "Bonheur" but "Bon heur".
As he wrote the word resurrect, which can be cut into "resusci-ter". We
then take "Heur" and "Ter" and we have "heurter", etc...
We can then obtain other texts, but it is indecodable given the number
of possible permutations and the absence of any other indication. In any case, it is certain that nothing should be taken literally or word for
word.
Le 11/08/2024 à 15:16, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 7:29:31 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.
? ? ?
Le 11/08/2024 à 16:30, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 11/08/2024 à 15:16, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 7:29:31 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.
? ? ?
Cranks likes obfuscation. You are crank. You loves obfuscation.
cosu.U is ambiguous between cos(u.U) and (cos u).U
U.cosu has no ambiguity
Le 11/08/2024 à 20:04, Python a écrit :
Le 11/08/2024 à 16:30, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 11/08/2024 à 15:16, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 7:29:31 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.
? ? ?
Cranks likes obfuscation. You are crank. You loves obfuscation.
cosu.U is ambiguous between cos(u.U) and (cos u).U
U.cosu has no ambiguity
Et si tu arrêtais de dire n'importe quoi?
Le 10/08/2024 à 18:56, gharnagel a écrit :
...
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.
Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)
Le 07/08/2024 à 22:22, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:Data.Media:
Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the >>> >> > explanations given to you.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/
lengthrealized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate, >>> > too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
I laughed.
R.H.
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if >>> > it were.
You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is
neither
fair nor pretty.
It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.
Am Mittwoch000007, 07.08.2024 um 23:28 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 07/08/2024 à 22:22, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : >>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:
Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:Data.Media:
Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the >>>>>>> explanations given to you.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/
length
I laughed.
R.H.
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just >>>>> realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate, >>>>> too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your >>>>> Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if >>>>> it were.
You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither >>>> fair nor pretty.
It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear
concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.
Mass is a scalar quantity and denotes the resistance to acceleration.
It is NOT 'quantity of matter' or similar!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:46:46 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,256 |