Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :

> Einstein's article.

On s'en tape de cet article à la con.

Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.

Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.

Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.

Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
envoyées y a pas longtemps.

Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
clairement.

Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que par
concours de bite.

ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
MËME REPERE INERTIEL.

Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
l'autre retarder sur elle-même
d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.

Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.

R.H.

M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
>
>> Einstein's article.
>
> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.

The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.

Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
you to understand it.

Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
you have no respect and so do not deserve any.

> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
>
> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
>
> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
>
> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
>
> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
> clairement.
>
> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
> par concours de bite.
>
> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.

Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
be proven mathematically. Your bunch of nonsense is contradictory,
this can be proven too mathematically.

You are a insufferable idiot, Richard, and a despicable liar.

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> > Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
> >
> >> Einstein's article.
> >
> > On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
>
> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
> you to understand it.
>
> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
> > Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
> > absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
> > de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
> >
> > Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
> >
> > Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
> >
> > Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
> > envoyées y a pas longtemps.
> >
> > Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
> > clairement.
> >
> > Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
> > par concours de bite.
> >
> > ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
> > MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
> > Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
> > l'autre retarder sur elle-même
> > d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
> > l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
> > électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
> > Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
> be proven mathematically.

Mathematically, you say?
Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
again?

Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Einstein's article.
>>>
>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
>>
>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
>> you to understand it.
>>
>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
>>>
>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
>>>
>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
>>>
>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
>>>
>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
>>> clairement.
>>>
>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
>>> par concours de bite.
>>>
>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
>> be proven mathematically.
>
> Mathematically, you say?

Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.

> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> again?

I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
posting nonsense on Usenet.

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> >>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> Einstein's article.
> >>>
> >>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
> >> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
> >>
> >> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
> >> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
> >> you to understand it.
> >>
> >> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
> >> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
> >>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
> >>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
> >>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
> >>>
> >>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
> >>>
> >>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
> >>>
> >>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
> >>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
> >>>
> >>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
> >>> clairement.
> >>>
> >>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
> >>> par concours de bite.
> >>>
> >>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
> >>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
> >>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
> >>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
> >>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
> >>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
> >>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
> >>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
> >> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
> >> be proven mathematically.
> >
> > Mathematically, you say?
> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
> > Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> > again?
> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland

True, but it's not the answer to my question.
Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
again?

Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein's article.
>>>>>
>>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
>>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
>>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
>>>> you to understand it.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
>>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
>>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
>>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
>>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
>>>>>
>>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
>>>>>
>>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
>>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
>>>>> clairement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
>>>>> par concours de bite.
>>>>>
>>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
>>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
>>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
>>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
>>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
>>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
>>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
>>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
>>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
>>>> be proven mathematically.
>>>
>>> Mathematically, you say?
>> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
>>> again?
>> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
>
> True, but it's not the answer to my question.
> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> again?

Such proofs are public knowledge, you can check for yourself.

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 15:02:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> >>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Einstein's article.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
> >>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
> >>>>
> >>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
> >>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
> >>>> you to understand it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
> >>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
> >>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
> >>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
> >>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
> >>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
> >>>>> clairement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
> >>>>> par concours de bite.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
> >>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
> >>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
> >>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
> >>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
> >>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
> >>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
> >>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
> >>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
> >>>> be proven mathematically.
> >>>
> >>> Mathematically, you say?
> >> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
> >>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> >>> again?
> >> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
> >
> > True, but it's not the answer to my question.
> > Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> > again?
> Such proofs are public knowledge

But the specification I ask must be top secret.
I bet peanuts against dollars it's mentioned
nowhere.

Anyway, see - Pythagorean theorem is also
mathematically proven, but it's still false for
the world we inhabit (at least, that's what
your bunch of idiots is teaching). How
about this one? Proven, well, let it be, but
- is it true?

Ignorant big mouth Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 15:02:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Einstein's article.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
>>>>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
>>>>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
>>>>>> you to understand it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
>>>>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
>>>>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
>>>>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
>>>>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
>>>>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
>>>>>>> clairement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
>>>>>>> par concours de bite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
>>>>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
>>>>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
>>>>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
>>>>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
>>>>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
>>>>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
>>>>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
>>>>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
>>>>>> be proven mathematically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematically, you say?
>>>> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
>>>>> again?
>>>> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
>>>
>>> True, but it's not the answer to my question.
>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
>>> again?
>> Such proofs are public knowledge
>
> But the specification I ask must be top secret.
> I bet peanuts against dollars it's mentioned
> nowhere.

Every derivation of SR equations takes place in
the context of affine spaces. Affine spaces are
part of linear algebra. From there any minimal
knowledge of mathematics would allow you to
guess what "is mentioned nowhere". So you
won't be able to do that unfortunately.

> Anyway, see - Pythagorean theorem is also
> mathematically proven, but it's still false for
> the world we inhabit (at least, that's what
> your bunch of idiots is teaching). How
> about this one? Proven, well, let it be, but
> - is it true?

You'll never get it, Wozniak. It's not that hard
to understand but out of your abilities.

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:01:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Ignorant big mouth Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 15:02:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> >>>>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Einstein's article.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
> >>>>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
> >>>>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
> >>>>>> you to understand it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
> >>>>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
> >>>>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
> >>>>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
> >>>>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
> >>>>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
> >>>>>>> clairement.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
> >>>>>>> par concours de bite.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
> >>>>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
> >>>>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
> >>>>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
> >>>>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
> >>>>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
> >>>>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
> >>>>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
> >>>>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
> >>>>>> be proven mathematically.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mathematically, you say?
> >>>> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
> >>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> >>>>> again?
> >>>> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
> >>>
> >>> True, but it's not the answer to my question.
> >>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> >>> again?
> >> Such proofs are public knowledge
> >
> > But the specification I ask must be top secret.
> > I bet peanuts against dollars it's mentioned
> > nowhere.
> Every derivation of SR equations takes place in
> the context of affine spaces. Affine spaces are
> part of linear algebra.

So, "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent"
is one of the theorems of the linear algebra? Are you sure, poor
halfbrain?

> > Anyway, see - Pythagorean theorem is also
> > mathematically proven, but it's still false for
> > the world we inhabit (at least, that's what
> > your bunch of idiots is teaching). How
> > about this one? Proven, well, let it be, but
> > - is it true?
> You'll never get it, Wozniak. It's not that hard
> to understand but out of your abilities.

Just like answerring a simple question
for you?

Insufferable idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:01:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Ignorant big mouth Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 15:02:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's article.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
>>>>>>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
>>>>>>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
>>>>>>>> you to understand it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
>>>>>>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
>>>>>>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
>>>>>>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
>>>>>>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
>>>>>>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
>>>>>>>>> clairement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
>>>>>>>>> par concours de bite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
>>>>>>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
>>>>>>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
>>>>>>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
>>>>>>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
>>>>>>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
>>>>>>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
>>>>>>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
>>>>>>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
>>>>>>>> be proven mathematically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathematically, you say?
>>>>>> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
>>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but it's not the answer to my question.
>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
>>>>> again?
>>>> Such proofs are public knowledge
>>>
>>> But the specification I ask must be top secret.
>>> I bet peanuts against dollars it's mentioned
>>> nowhere.
>> Every derivation of SR equations takes place in
>> the context of affine spaces. Affine spaces are
>> part of linear algebra.
>
> So, "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent"
> is one of the theorems of the linear algebra? Are you sure?

I am.

>>> Anyway, see - Pythagorean theorem is also
>>> mathematically proven, but it's still false for
>>> the world we inhabit (at least, that's what
>>> your bunch of idiots is teaching). How
>>> about this one? Proven, well, let it be, but
>>> - is it true?
>> You'll never get it, Wozniak. It's not that hard
>> to understand but out of your abilities.
>
> Just like answerring a simple question
> for you?

There is no point in answering to a question asked
by someone too dumb to understand the answer.

> poor halfbrain

Nice signature, Wozniak.

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:34:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Insufferable idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:01:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Ignorant big mouth Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 15:02:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Einstein's article.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
> >>>>>>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
> >>>>>>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
> >>>>>>>> you to understand it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
> >>>>>>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
> >>>>>>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
> >>>>>>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
> >>>>>>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
> >>>>>>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
> >>>>>>>>> clairement.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
> >>>>>>>>> par concours de bite.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
> >>>>>>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
> >>>>>>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
> >>>>>>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
> >>>>>>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
> >>>>>>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
> >>>>>>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
> >>>>>>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
> >>>>>>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
> >>>>>>>> be proven mathematically.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mathematically, you say?
> >>>>>> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
> >>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> >>>>>>> again?
> >>>>>> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
> >>>>>
> >>>>> True, but it's not the answer to my question.
> >>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> >>>>> again?
> >>>> Such proofs are public knowledge
> >>>
> >>> But the specification I ask must be top secret.
> >>> I bet peanuts against dollars it's mentioned
> >>> nowhere.
> >> Every derivation of SR equations takes place in
> >> the context of affine spaces. Affine spaces are
> >> part of linear algebra.
> >
> > So, "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent"
> > is one of the theorems of the linear algebra? Are you sure?
>
> I am.

How does linear algebra define "light"?

Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:34:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Insufferable idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:01:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Ignorant big mouth Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 15:02:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's article.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
>>>>>>>>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
>>>>>>>>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
>>>>>>>>>> you to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
>>>>>>>>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
>>>>>>>>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
>>>>>>>>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
>>>>>>>>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
>>>>>>>>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
>>>>>>>>>>> clairement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
>>>>>>>>>>> par concours de bite.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
>>>>>>>>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
>>>>>>>>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
>>>>>>>>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
>>>>>>>>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
>>>>>>>>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
>>>>>>>>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
>>>>>>>>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
>>>>>>>>>> be proven mathematically.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mathematically, you say?
>>>>>>>> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
>>>>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
>>>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>>> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True, but it's not the answer to my question.
>>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>> Such proofs are public knowledge
>>>>>
>>>>> But the specification I ask must be top secret.
>>>>> I bet peanuts against dollars it's mentioned
>>>>> nowhere.
>>>> Every derivation of SR equations takes place in
>>>> the context of affine spaces. Affine spaces are
>>>> part of linear algebra.
>>>
>>> So, "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent"
>>> is one of the theorems of the linear algebra? Are you sure?
>>
>> I am.
>
> How does linear algebra define "light"?

>> There is no point in answering to a question asked
>> by someone too dumb to understand the answer.

See?

(note: Einstein-Poincaré synch. procedure can use another
intermediate than light, there is one property that light
shares with other means that matters here, and this property
can be expressed in term of an affine kind of object)

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:50:23 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:34:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Insufferable idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:01:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Ignorant big mouth Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 15:02:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's article.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
> >>>>>>>>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
> >>>>>>>>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
> >>>>>>>>>> you to understand it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
> >>>>>>>>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
> >>>>>>>>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
> >>>>>>>>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas..
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
> >>>>>>>>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
> >>>>>>>>>>> clairement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
> >>>>>>>>>>> par concours de bite.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
> >>>>>>>>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
> >>>>>>>>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
> >>>>>>>>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
> >>>>>>>>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
> >>>>>>>>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
> >>>>>>>>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
> >>>>>>>>>> be proven mathematically.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Mathematically, you say?
> >>>>>>>> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
> >>>>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> >>>>>>>>> again?
> >>>>>>>> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> True, but it's not the answer to my question.
> >>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> >>>>>>> again?
> >>>>>> Such proofs are public knowledge
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But the specification I ask must be top secret.
> >>>>> I bet peanuts against dollars it's mentioned
> >>>>> nowhere.
> >>>> Every derivation of SR equations takes place in
> >>>> the context of affine spaces. Affine spaces are
> >>>> part of linear algebra.
> >>>
> >>> So, "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent"
> >>> is one of the theorems of the linear algebra? Are you sure?
> >>
> >> I am.
> >
> > How does linear algebra define "light"?
> >> There is no point in answering to a question asked
> >> by someone too dumb to understand the answer.
> See?
>
> (note: Einstein-Poincaré synch. procedure can use another
> intermediate than light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
Try again.

Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:50:23 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:34:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Insufferable idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:01:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Ignorant big mouth Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 15:02:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
>>>>>>>>>>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>> you to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
>>>>>>>>>>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
>>>>>>>>>>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clairement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
>>>>>>>>>>>>> par concours de bite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
>>>>>>>>>>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
>>>>>>>>>>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be proven mathematically.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematically, you say?
>>>>>>>>>> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
>>>>>>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
>>>>>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True, but it's not the answer to my question.
>>>>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
>>>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>>> Such proofs are public knowledge
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the specification I ask must be top secret.
>>>>>>> I bet peanuts against dollars it's mentioned
>>>>>>> nowhere.
>>>>>> Every derivation of SR equations takes place in
>>>>>> the context of affine spaces. Affine spaces are
>>>>>> part of linear algebra.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent"
>>>>> is one of the theorems of the linear algebra? Are you sure?
>>>>
>>>> I am.
>>>
>>> How does linear algebra define "light"?
>>>> There is no point in answering to a question asked
>>>> by someone too dumb to understand the answer.
>> See?
>>
>> (note: Einstein-Poincaré synch. procedure can use another
>> intermediate than light
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
> Try again.

Your problem is that you read stuff that you are unwilling
and unable to understand.

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 18:10:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:50:23 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:34:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Insufferable idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 17:01:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Ignorant big mouth Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 15:02:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:51:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Stupid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:41:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/03/2023 à 10:16, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's article.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On s'en tape de cet article à la con.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic of the thread is Thomas' comments on Einstein's article.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover it is not an "article à la con" you're just stuck into
> >>>>>>>>>>>> your "idée fixe". Your stubborness, arrogance and stupidity prevent
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you to understand it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, again you're posting in French in a English-speaking newsgroup,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you have no respect and so do not deserve any.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Il n'est même pas foutu de comprendre qu'une synchronisation n'est pas
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> absolue, et que la notion du "temps présent" est totalement dépendante
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> de l'observateur, et pas de son repère.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le repère inertiel absolu, je comprends.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le référentiel inertiel absolu, je ne comprends pas.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Je l'ai expliqué mille fois, et encore sur les deux pages que j'ai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> envoyées y a pas longtemps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Il est impossible que tu ne puisses comprendre ce qui est expliqué très
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> clairement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ou alors tu es con, ou alors pire, c'est volontaire, et tu n'agis que
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> par concours de bite.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ON NE PEUT PAS SYNCHRONISER ABSOLUMENT DEUX MONTRES MEME PLACEES DANS LE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> MËME REPERE INERTIEL.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dans la meilleur d'une synchronisation voulue cohérente, chacune verra
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> l'autre retarder sur elle-même
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> d'une valeur t=x/c, valeur réelle, physique, incontournable, donnant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> l'illusion qu'un transfert instantané d'information (ondes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> électromagnétiques) se fait à vitesse c.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Si tu ne comprends pas, c'est que TOI, tu es très bête.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent, this can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be proven mathematically.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Mathematically, you say?
> >>>>>>>>>> Yep, something you know nothing about Maciej.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> >>>>>>>>>>> again?
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not paid to train idiotic ranting old fool from Poland
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> True, but it's not the answer to my question.
> >>>>>>>>> Under what set of axioms? Peano arithmetics,
> >>>>>>>>> again?
> >>>>>>>> Such proofs are public knowledge
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But the specification I ask must be top secret.
> >>>>>>> I bet peanuts against dollars it's mentioned
> >>>>>>> nowhere.
> >>>>>> Every derivation of SR equations takes place in
> >>>>>> the context of affine spaces. Affine spaces are
> >>>>>> part of linear algebra.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure is consistent"
> >>>>> is one of the theorems of the linear algebra? Are you sure?
> >>>>
> >>>> I am.
> >>>
> >>> How does linear algebra define "light"?
> >>>> There is no point in answering to a question asked
> >>>> by someone too dumb to understand the answer.
> >> See?
> >>
> >> (note: Einstein-Poincaré synch. procedure can use another
> >> intermediate than light
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
> > Try again.
> Your problem is that you read stuff that you are unwilling

And your problem is that you're a lying, fanatic idiot.
How do you define your "Einstein-Poincare
synchronization without light"?

Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 18:10:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:
....
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
>>> Try again.
>> Your problem is that you read stuff that you are unwilling
>
> And your problem is that you're a lying, fanatic idiot.
> How do you define your "Einstein-Poincare
> synchronization without light"?

*sigh*. Try solve out this quite elementary exercise:

1. What is the property of light that is used in the
derivation of P-E synchronization procedure?
2. Express this property in term of linear algebra

Any decent first year student at college can answer easily.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:17:00 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 13.03.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 12.03.2023 um 15:36 schrieb Python:
> >>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> >>>>> Le 12/03/2023 à 13:34, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations
> >>>>>>>>>>> contain
> >>>>>>>>>>> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you
> >>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>> found something wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong
> >>>>>>>>>> or at
> >>>>>>>>>> best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish
> >>>>>>>>>> someone
> >>>>>>>>>> would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You were told in detail.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be
> >>>>>>> found here:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One of the most outrageous blunders you've made is this comment on
> >>>>>> page 2 :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If Einstein had added the delay of the timed signal, this
> >>>>>>> disadvantage would disappear.
> >>>>>>> But he took the actual reading of the remote clock as time at the
> >>>>>>> clock's location.
> >>>>>>> That made it difficult to relocate the clock, while maintaining the
> >>>>>>> same time.
> >>>>>>> It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add
> >>>>>>> the delay or not,
> >>>>>>> because no statement about that can be found in this text.
> >>>>>>> But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that
> >>>>>>> would solve
> >>>>>>> this problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've shown to you repeatedly that the synchronization described on
> >>>>>> page 3 is exactly "taking the delay into account". He didn't describe
> >>>>>> it with the exact wording you wanted for a good reason: separating
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>> is conventional in this procedure and what is not. This procedure can
> >>>>>> be shown to be strictly equivalent to what Poincaré proposed before.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the context of page 3, these two equations:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
> >>>>>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> implies:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> i.e. time for clock at B for the event taking place at clock A is
> >>>>>> time
> >>>>>> for clock A + delay of propagation of light from B to A.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This *precisely* means "taking the delay into account". And if
> >>>>>> obvious
> >>>>>> for everyone with minimal mathematical ability.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>
> >> Yes, obviously yes.
> >>
> >>> After carefull reading of the entire text and searching for any
> >>> possible hint, that Einstein din't want to use the actually reading of
> >>> the remote clock as time at the location of the remote clock and
> >>> finding no hint whatsoever, that he wanted to add the delay,
> >>
> >> You didn't read carefully enough, or you have not the mathematical basic
> >> ability to notice that the two equation in part I.1.:
> >>
> >> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
> >> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
> >>
> >> implies:
> >>
> >> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
> >
> > It is conceptually difficult to combine values from different systems of
> > reference in one equation.
> >
> > t_B is the local time at place B, which is a remote location, that
> > maintains an own timing system.
> >
> > E.g. think about B as a place on the Moon or on a planet near Alpha
> > Centaury, where smarts critters live, which also have clocks.
> >
> > Now you cannot use their time values together with Earth time values,
> > unless you convert their measures into ours.
> >
> > But supposed you have a telesope capable of seeing the clocks at such
> > remote locations, you could actually see, what clocks there would show.
> >
> > That would be the value 't_B'.
> >
> > Now you could figuere out the distance to that place and assume a
> > constant signal velocity and estimate, when the own signal would arrive
> > there and when a reply would be expected.
> >
> > This reply would be here as expected, when our own clocks would show t_B
> > according to your equation.
> >
> > But now we have a discrepancy between the deifinitions of t_B, because
> > the different uses require diffent the units of time.
> >
> > The critters near Alpha Centaury will most likely not use hours and
> > seconds and we will most likely not understand their units.
> >
> > Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
> > actually be measured in units of those critters.
> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
>
> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
>
> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.

I'm beginning to think there is something wrong with him along the
Arhcimedes Plutonium lines. He seems unable to follow simple abstract
arguments, replacing them with absurdities piling without limit on
top of one another..

--
Jan

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:50:29 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 14/03/2023 à 03:19, JanPB a écrit :
> > On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:55:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 13/03/2023 à 22:54, JanPB a écrit :
> >>
> >> > No. You are daydreaming.
> >>
> >> > Jan
> >>
> >> Absolutely not.
> >>
> >> There are many conceptual anomalies in the SR as stated.
> >>
> >> The most famous is Langevin's paradox, which is irrefutable
> >
> > It is very refutable.
> Please stop.

There are no internal inconsistencies in SR(*). There is nothing
you (or I or Langevin) can do about it.

Don't waste your life on idiotic fantasies.

(*) The actual statement is "SR is as self-consistent as is
Euclidean geometry".

--
Jan

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 18:21:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Stupid git, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 18:10:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> ...
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
> >>> Try again.
> >> Your problem is that you read stuff that you are unwilling
> >
> > And your problem is that you're a lying, fanatic idiot.
> > How do you define your "Einstein-Poincare
> > synchronization without light"?
> *sigh*. Try solve out this quite elementary exercise:

*sigh*. Try solve out this quite elementary exercise:
WHAT is your (proven consistent) "Einstein-Poincare
synchronization procedure without light"?
Is it the same what Einstein-Poincare
synchronization procedure with light is?

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 18:36:18 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:50:29 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 14/03/2023 à 03:19, JanPB a écrit :
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:55:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >> Le 13/03/2023 à 22:54, JanPB a écrit :
> > >>
> > >> > No. You are daydreaming.
> > >>
> > >> > Jan
> > >>
> > >> Absolutely not.
> > >>
> > >> There are many conceptual anomalies in the SR as stated.
> > >>
> > >> The most famous is Langevin's paradox, which is irrefutable
> > >
> > > It is very refutable.
> > Please stop.
> There are no internal inconsistencies in SR(*). There is nothing
> you (or I or Langevin) can do about it.
>
> Don't waste your life on idiotic fantasies.
>
> (*) The actual statement is "SR is as self-consistent as is
> Euclidean geometry".

No. Your SR shit is obviously inconsistent, as demonstrated
many times here.
There is nothing what you (or Python, or any other relativistic
idiot here) can do about it, except barkin g and waving arms,
of course.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> I had understood Einstein's words, as if time would in fact depend on
> location.
> It is not quite clear, if he actually meant that, but this
> interpretation would actually be the only one fitting to Einstein's
> text.

all right, Einstine was wrong. Clear in these papers, all good in a row.

UKRANIAN WOMAN CALLS OUT ZELENSKY FOR HIS SINS AGAINST THE PEOPLE ..
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/dCYl3qlFrKEx

the khazar zelenke kill his people to increase the GDP per capital. French
animators tell a story about Ukraine
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/MW8saoyjKQsq

Lukashenko： Russian military is number one in the world
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/MlXbVRYlzHPL

More metal. Russian off road humiliating Humvee
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/8FjKu7eKuHoi

Le 14/03/2023 à 18:36, JanPB a écrit :
> There are no internal inconsistencies in SR(*). There is nothing
> you (or I or Langevin) can do about it.
>
> Don't waste your life on idiotic fantasies.
>
> (*) The actual statement is "SR is as self-consistent as is
> Euclidean geometry".
>
> --
> Jan

I repeat for the thousandth time that if we take the description of the
phenomenon in apparent speeds (what we could see in telescopes), we come
across absurdities.

In the classic Langevin, take for example the return of the traveler,
everyone agrees that he will travel for 9 years, and that for nine years,
he will see the earth return to him.

It is attested to by everyone.

As it is attested by everyone, that the apparent velocity of the earth
returning to the traveler will be 4c.

It's been years since I reformulated everything, and I gave the right
concepts and good equations from Poincaré.

Poincaré, unfortunately, is dead.

Such a genius would have immediately accepted my vision of things, and
pointed out that indeed, 4c*9 could not make 7.2, and that the contraction
of distances, it did not work as physicists say, but as its own changes.

Properly applied the Poincaré equation gives immediately, 36ly.

Not 7.2 ly.

The equation used by Einstein is not correct.

x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), this is false.

You have to take the TLs, and you immediately have a much more coherent
spatial zoom effect.

x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)

Let then be an infinitely beautiful covariance of the effects.

Just as the earth sees a rocket three times longer (v=0.8c), the rocket
sees a covariant rocket-earth distance. That is to say three times longer.

It is of infinite theoretical beauty.

In opposition to the infinite cretinism of all the jerks who spit in my
face out of bullshit or jealousy.

R.H.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 11:14:50 AM UTC-7, Fernando Bosco wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > I had understood Einstein's words, as if time would in fact depend on
> > location.
> > It is not quite clear, if he actually meant that, but this
> > interpretation would actually be the only one fitting to Einstein's
> > text.
> all right, Einstine was wrong.

What makes you think anyone would trust a person
who cannot even spell "Einstein"?

--
Jan

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 11:34:30 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 14/03/2023 à 18:36, JanPB a écrit :
> > There are no internal inconsistencies in SR(*). There is nothing
> > you (or I or Langevin) can do about it.
> >
> > Don't waste your life on idiotic fantasies.
> >
> > (*) The actual statement is "SR is as self-consistent as is
> > Euclidean geometry".
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> I repeat for the thousandth time that if we take the description of the
> phenomenon in apparent speeds (what we could see in telescopes), we come
> across absurdities.

This is false.

--
Jan

Le 14/03/2023 à 22:16, JanPB a écrit :
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 11:34:30 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 14/03/2023 à 18:36, JanPB a écrit :
>> > There are no internal inconsistencies in SR(*). There is nothing
>> > you (or I or Langevin) can do about it.
>> >
>> > Don't waste your life on idiotic fantasies.
>> >
>> > (*) The actual statement is "SR is as self-consistent as is
>> > Euclidean geometry".
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jan
>> I repeat for the thousandth time that if we take the description of the
>> phenomenon in apparent speeds (what we could see in telescopes), we come
>> across absurdities.
>
> This is false.
>
> --
> Jan

It's true. SR is absurd without Hachel's description.

Tr=9 years.
Vapp=0.8/(1-0.8)=4c

x=Tr.Vapp=9*4= 36 ly

BUT Eistein pose : x=12.sqrt(1-0.8²)=7.2 ly

It's absurd.

Hachel pose : x=12.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]=36 ly

Hachel 1 - Einstein 0

R.H.