Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Sunday, 9 April 2023 at 21:09:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
....
> Python wrote:
>> I told you that "center of the Earth"
>> does not define a single frame of reference, dude.
>>
>> There is one FoR, however, centered at the center of
>> the Earth where both velocities are equal. Could you guess
>> which one ?
>>
>> There are many others though, and frames of reference not
>> centered on the center of Earth too. What is the closing
>> speed between Warsaw and Gdansk in these frames Maciej?

So no answer from "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?

Python wrote:

> Le 09/04/2023 à 17:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> [...]
>
> Thomas, if you really want to know what physics says about these issues
> (and Einstein's paper is the very foundation of all of this,
> despite your silly claims), you may want to watch this new video from
> ScienceClic channel:

fine, here are the coward lying satanists *_terrorist_wankers_* of the
planet earth, year 2023.

Gee, I wonder who blew up the Nordstream pipeline What a mystery!
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/tnhDqR1qL0F3

Le 09/04/2023 à 22:29, Nym-shifting troll, aka Hector Bergamaschi wrote:
> Python wrote:
>
>> Le 09/04/2023 à 17:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> [...]
>>
>> Thomas, if you really want to know what physics says about these issues
>> (and Einstein's paper is the very foundation of all of this,
>> despite your silly claims), you may want to watch this new video from
>> ScienceClic channel:
>
> fine, here are the coward lying satanists *_terrorist_wankers_* of the
> planet earth, year 2023.
>
> Gee, I wonder who blew up the Nordstream pipeline What a mystery!
> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/tnhDqR1qL0F3

Nym-shifting troll, you're not funny...

Le 09/04/2023 à 22:15, Python a écrit :
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>> On Sunday, 9 April 2023 at 21:09:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> ...
>> Python wrote:
>>>  I told you that "center of the Earth"
>>> does not define a single frame of reference, dude.
>>>
>>> There is one FoR, however, centered at the center of
>>> the Earth where both velocities are equal. Could you guess
>>> which one ?
>>>
>>> There are many others though, and frames of reference not
>>> centered on the center of Earth too. What is the closing
>>> speed between Warsaw and Gdansk in these frames Maciej?
>
> So no answer from "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?

Good. We use to notice when Maciej wakes up at the asylum, not
we know he's actually sleeping at 22:00 local time.

On 4/9/2023 3:29 PM, Hector Bergamaschi wrote:
> Python wrote:
>
>> Le 09/04/2023 à 17:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> [...]
>>
>> Thomas, if you really want to know what physics says about these issues
>> (and Einstein's paper is the very foundation of all of this,
>> despite your silly claims), you may want to watch this new video from
>> ScienceClic channel:
>
> fine, here are the coward lying satanists *_terrorist_wankers_* of the
> planet earth, year 2023.
>
> Gee, I wonder who blew up the Nordstream pipeline What a mystery!
> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/tnhDqR1qL0F3

In 1933 the Nazi party burned down the Reichstag and blamed the
opposition (in that case communists.) Sounds like a repeat of
that theme.

whodat wrote:

>> fine, here are the coward lying satanists *_terrorist_wankers_* of the
>> planet earth, year 2023.
>> Gee, I wonder who blew up the Nordstream pipeline What a mystery!
>> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/tnhDqR1qL0F3
> In 1933 the Nazi party burned down the Reichstag and blamed the
> opposition (in that case communists.) Sounds like a repeat of that
> theme.

you rather sounds unmistakably like another gay actor playing "president",
sucking large dicks. Not my fault, be my guest.

Tim Kellner - HÜHNERZÜCHTER verarscht ein ganzes LAND!
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/oJo7mVh3PctM

On 4/9/2023 5:04 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 4/9/2023 3:29 PM, Hector Bergamaschi wrote:
>> Python wrote:
>>
>>> Le 09/04/2023 à 17:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Thomas, if you really want to know what physics says about these issues
>>> (and Einstein's paper is the very foundation of all of this,
>>> despite your silly claims), you may want to watch this new video from
>>> ScienceClic channel:
>>
>> fine, here are the coward lying satanists *_terrorist_wankers_* of the
>> planet earth, year 2023.
>>
>> Gee, I wonder who blew up the Nordstream pipeline What a mystery!
>> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/tnhDqR1qL0F3
>
> In 1933 the Nazi party burned down the Reichstag and blamed the
> opposition (in that case communists.) Sounds like a repeat of
> that theme.
>
Especially since 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐 *always* accuses the opposition of what they
are doing.

On 4/8/2023 3:47 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 08/04/2023 à 00:17, Volney a écrit :
>> On 4/7/2023 6:43 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 07/04/2023 à 08:27, Volney a écrit :
>>>> On 4/6/2023 11:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you make up crap words like "chronotropy" and "bathmotropy"?
>>>
>>>> p.s. It's "Martian", not "Marsian".
>>>
>>> I do it because it is necessary.
>>
>> Necessary for what? Necessary in order to confuse people?
>
> No, simply because it is necessary.
>
> You just have to look at what a relativity forum or a site dealing with
> relativity is, and you immediately realize the enormous confusion (even
> insults) that reign there.

Adding made-up words to increase the confusion is necessary?

Using non-standard variable names like To instead of t and tau like
everyone else does, in order to increase the confusion, is necessary?

Posting in French to an English-language group, despite being quite
rude, is necessary? To increase the confusion? Or you do it to get the
last word in? Or you do it when you get frustrated/mad and want to blast
out an answer and don't want to translate your thoughts into English?
>
> This comes from the fact that the theory is not entirely clear, and that
> those who say it put it like religious people.

Are you about to say that relativity is a religion/scientists worship
Einstein?
>
> It is necessary, precisely, to try (I say try because it is not won in
> advance) to see things a little more clearly, to find more accurate
> words to give truer equations (because certain equations are completely
> false).

How are made-up words, used by nobody else (except perhaps cardiologists
for an unrelated meaning) going to clarify anything?
>
> Let's take the basics;
> we say the Lorentz transformations, I find the term very restrictive
> when we know who discovered them (the greatest mathematician of all
> time). I prefer, for the sake of clarity and written justice: the
> transformations of Poincaré-Lorentz.
>
> Ditto for the term "starlight aberration". The term "the aberration of
> the position of the stars" is more proper.

The other terms are shorter for one. I'm not talking ab out that, but
nonsense words like "bathmotropy".

> More precision, beauty, correctness and truth in the theory would not be
> initile.

Initile?

Scientists have certain phrases with precise meanings in the context of
relativity/mechanics. Like "proper time", no matter what you try to call
it or the janitor whines about it.
>
> It would also avoid all those sterile and violent debates that we see
> here and there.

It increases them because nobody knows what you are trying to say.
Especially when you post in French.

Le 10/04/2023 à 05:22, Volney a écrit :
>> This comes from the fact that the theory is not entirely clear, and that
>> those who say it put it like religious people.
>
> Are you about to say that relativity is a religion/scientists worship
> Einstein?

Today, absolutly.

R.H.

Le 10/04/2023 à 05:22, Volney a écrit :
> How are made-up words, used by nobody else (except perhaps cardiologists
> for an unrelated meaning) going to clarify anything?
>>

Cardiologists do not have a monopoly on words.

When the words have a meaning, do not hesitate to use them.

Humans often do the opposite.

He uses tons of nonsense words, and worships them, and the words that do
make sense, he spits on them.

R.H.

Le 10/04/2023 à 05:22, Volney a écrit :
> The other terms are shorter for one. I'm not talking ab out that, but
> nonsense words like "bathmotropy".

I disagree, and I'm not sure that word is that stupid.

In relativity, when two watches evolve in different inertial reference
frames, whatever their direction between them, I am only talking about
relative speed, it seems that their mechanism is more or less reciprocally
excited.

Each of them considers that the mechanism of the other is less "excited",
that it "slows down".

This reciprocal dilation of bathmotropy, therefore of chronotropy, has
been accepted since the time of Poincaré.

We talk about the gamma factor.

Now we like or we don't like the way Richard Hachel makes poetry with
words.

Except that the poetry is more beautiful, and that the final equations
become truer.

It still poses quite a problem.

R.H.

Le 10/04/2023 à 05:22, Volney a écrit :
>
> Scientists have certain phrases with precise meanings in the context of
> relativity/mechanics. Like "proper time", no matter what you try to call
> it or the janitor whines about it.
>>

Proper time : I understand

Observable time : also.

General addition of relativistic speeds : also.

Bathmotropie, chronitropie, anisochrony : I understand.

Relativitic space-zoom : I understand.

x=Vapp.Tr=4*9=36ly : It's logic.

To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax), Tr=sqrt(2x/a),
x=(c²/a).[sqrt(1+a²To²/c²)-1] , x=(1/2).a.Tr² : I understand

Minkowskian spacetime ; 9*4=7.2 ; tau = (1/a)invsinh(at) : I don't
understand.

R.H.

Le 10/04/2023 à 05:22, Volney a écrit :

> It increases them because nobody knows what you are trying to say.
> Especially when you post in French.

Do you really feel that the misunderstanding problem is a language
problem?

No, not even.

It's not even a scientific problem, it's a universal problem.

Jesus said the same thing, Nietzsche said the same thing, Berkeley said
the same thing.

All the great minds said the same thing.

It is very difficult to establish new tables.

R.H.

Am 09.04.2023 um 21:44 schrieb Python:
> Le 09/04/2023 à 17:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> [...]
>
> Thomas, if you really want to know what physics says about these
> issues (and Einstein's paper is the very foundation of all of this,
> despite your silly claims), you may want to watch this new video
> from ScienceClic channel:
>
> What would we see at the speed of light?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFNgd3pitAI
>
> Maybe your buddy Richard would want to watch the French version...

In my 'world' you cannot fly with the speed of light, because any
observer is 'self-centered'.

IOW: you always need to refer to something in relativity and a lonely
spacecraft in a dark void can only refer to itself.

This would exclude travels at the speed of light, because that
spacecraft has always the speed zero in respect to itself and no other
reference point is available.

I assume actually, that different signal delays from stars at different
distances are in most cases ignored in cosmology and the spirals caused
by movements of the solar system around the galactic center are ascribed
to the objects seen in remote distances, instead of to the movement of
the Earth.

This would be a totally logic assumption, because it has nothing to do
with relativity or cosmology, but is based on the assumption, that most
cosmologists like to keep their job and income.

We have this phenomenon in several other forms in other sciences, too,
where a system called 'Academia' hinders outsiders to become heard and
where non of the forefathers may be questioned.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 09.04.2023 um 21:44 schrieb Python:
>> Le 09/04/2023 à 17:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> [...]
>>
>> Thomas, if you really want to know what physics says about these
>> issues (and Einstein's paper is the very foundation of all of this,
>> despite your silly claims), you may want to watch this new video
>> from ScienceClic channel:
>>
>> What would we see at the speed of light?
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFNgd3pitAI
>>
>> Maybe your buddy Richard would want to watch the French version...
>
> In my 'world' you cannot [bla bla bla]

I'm not interested by you world of personal absurd fantasies. I expected
you may be interested by what Relativity says.

It's interesting to note that you *never* show any kind of interest
for what the actual theories and experiments in physics express and
show (not only in physics, btw). So following any idea that pops out
of your mind and never consider the work of other people through
times seems to you a reasonable way of thinking? Just asking.

On Monday, 10 April 2023 at 21:17:44 UTC+2, Python wrote:

> I'm not interested by you world of personal absurd fantasies. I expected
> you may be interested by what Relativity says.

And what does your Shit say, poor fanatic
halfbrain?
Are the velocities of Gdansk and Warsaw
wrt an observer in the center of Earth the
same or not? As Gdansk and Warsaw are
at rest wrt each other... Well?

> It's interesting to note that you *never* show any kind of interest
> for what the actual theories and experiments in physics express and

Neither you're interested that in the real
world - forbidden by your bunch of idiots
improper clocks keep measuring improper
t'=t in improper seconds.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 10 April 2023 at 21:17:44 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>
>> I'm not interested by you world of personal absurd fantasies. I expected
>> you may be interested by what Relativity says.
>
> And what does your Shit say, poor fanatic
> halfbrain?
> Are the velocities of Gdansk and Warsaw
> wrt an observer in the center of Earth the
> same or not? As Gdansk and Warsaw are
> at rest wrt each other... Well?

I've already answered to all of your silly questions. I'm
not about to repeat myself.

>> It's interesting to note that you *never* show any kind of interest
>> for what the actual theories and experiments in physics express and
>
> Neither you're interested that in the real
> world - forbidden by your bunch of idiots
> improper clocks keep measuring improper
> t'=t in improper seconds.

Nonsense drivel, as usual Maciej.

Volney wrote:

>>> Gee, I wonder who blew up the Nordstream pipeline What a mystery!
>>> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/tnhDqR1qL0F3
>>
>> I̶n̶ 1933 t̶h̶e̶ N̶a̶zi̶ p̶a̶r̶t̶y̶ b̶u̶r̶n̶e̶d̶ d̶o̶w̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ R̶e̶i̶c̶h̶s̶t̶a̶g̶ a̶n̶d̶ b̶l̶a̶m̶e̶d̶ t̶h̶e̶
>> o̶p̶p̶o̶s̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ (i̶n̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ c̶a̶s̶e̶ c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶s̶t̶s̶.) S̶o̶u̶n̶d̶s̶ l̶i̶k̶e̶ a̶ r̶e̶p̶e̶a̶t̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶
>> t̶h̶e̶m̶e̶.
> E̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ s̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ 卐R̶u̶⚡︎⚡︎i̶a̶卐 *a̶l̶w̶a̶y̶s̶* a̶c̶c̶u̶s̶e̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ o̶p̶p̶o̶s̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ o̶f̶ w̶h̶a̶t̶
> t̶h̶e̶y̶ a̶r̶e̶ d̶o̶i̶n̶g̶

not true. There can't be peace *_until_these_two_shitholes_* disappears
from the *_map_of_Europe_*, the khazar polakia and the khazar norway. Wait
and see.

On Monday, 10 April 2023 at 23:47:32 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 10 April 2023 at 21:17:44 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not interested by you world of personal absurd fantasies. I expected
> >> you may be interested by what Relativity says.
> >
> > And what does your Shit say, poor fanatic
> > halfbrain?
> > Are the velocities of Gdansk and Warsaw
> > wrt an observer in the center of Earth the
> > same or not? As Gdansk and Warsaw are
> > at rest wrt each other... Well?
> I've already answered to all of your silly questions.

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash
in general and from Python in special.
Well?

Am 10.04.2023 um 21:17 schrieb Python:
...
>> In my 'world' you cannot [bla bla bla]
>
> I'm not interested by you world of personal absurd fantasies. I expected
> you may be interested by what Relativity says.
>
> It's interesting to note that you *never* show any kind of interest
> for what the actual theories and experiments in physics express and
> show (not only in physics, btw). So following any idea that pops out
> of your mind and never consider the work of other people through
> times seems to you a reasonable way of thinking? Just asking.
>

This is totally wrong.

But I'm a hobbyist and an engineer from education and have no connection
to academic physics.

Therefore, my knowledge is limited to what I'm interested in and what I
found time and incentive to read.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to read all the manuscripts, books and
papers in physics, because that would require more than a lifetime.

So, my informations are limited. But actually every person faces the
same problem: life is to short and our brain is too small to know
everything, hence we need to select what we want to do.

And because I'm a hobbyist, I can select that myself, while
professionals and students can't.

TH

On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 09:08:49 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.04.2023 um 21:17 schrieb Python:
> ...
> >> In my 'world' you cannot [bla bla bla]
> >
> > I'm not interested by you world of personal absurd fantasies. I expected
> > you may be interested by what Relativity says.
> >
> > It's interesting to note that you *never* show any kind of interest
> > for what the actual theories and experiments in physics express and
> > show (not only in physics, btw). So following any idea that pops out
> > of your mind and never consider the work of other people through
> > times seems to you a reasonable way of thinking? Just asking.
> >
> This is totally wrong.

No, it's not. Of course, there is no shame in refusing to
learn some self inconsistent mystical mumble of a
bunch of fanatic religious maniacs rejecting both
common sense and basic mathematics.

Am 11.04.2023 um 10:09 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 09:08:49 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 10.04.2023 um 21:17 schrieb Python:
>> ...
>>>> In my 'world' you cannot [bla bla bla]
>>>
>>> I'm not interested by you world of personal absurd fantasies. I expected
>>> you may be interested by what Relativity says.
>>>
>>> It's interesting to note that you *never* show any kind of interest
>>> for what the actual theories and experiments in physics express and
>>> show (not only in physics, btw). So following any idea that pops out
>>> of your mind and never consider the work of other people through
>>> times seems to you a reasonable way of thinking? Just asking.
>>>
>> This is totally wrong.
>
> No, it's not. Of course, there is no shame in refusing to
> learn some self inconsistent mystical mumble of a
> bunch of fanatic religious maniacs rejecting both
> common sense and basic mathematics.
>

Well, I can also read papers with errors or total crap, if I like to do so.

But it's important to identify the errors and keep only, what is useful
from some material.

For entertainment purposes it is eventully useful to consume utter
nonsense and forget that as soon as possible.

TH

Am 07.04.2023 um 11:39 schrieb Python:

Part I.1 of the article deals with the synchronization of clocks
in relative rest. This is the basis that allows us to speak of a
repository(one more thing you will never understand). The procedure that
Einstein described is equivalent to that which Poincaré had proposed in
his time.

two clocks of the same nature are placed in A and B, in relative rest.

a light signal starts from A when the clock in A marks t_A
it arrives in B when the clock in B marks t_B and a light signal
is then sent to A when the latter arrives at A, the clock at A marks t'_A

contrary to your gloubiboulga you will notice that each term
is here properly defined and that a clock value is only taken
into account only if the event concerned takes place at the same place
as the clock itself. There is no assumption of any
universal "time".
>
>

(I don't speak French, but can identify the meaning somehow, hence
needed to translate your comment with the help of google)

There is a problem, because "There is no assumption of any
universal "time"." is meant as time for one single frame of reference.

But inside such a single frame of reference 'universal' means 'valid
throughout that entire frame of reference evenly'.

IOW: one frame of reference has only one single time measure, which is
valid throughout the entire realm, which this foR can describe.

This would also include all points at relative rest in respect to the
zero spot.

Now this would require a different method for synchronization than
Einstein had used.

E.g. I have a remote location in, say, 1 ly distance, than a
synchronization from clocks here with clocks there should take signal
delay (1 y) into account.

The 'master clock' should be placed at the zero spot of the FoR and all
other clocks (at rest) belong to the same hypersheet of the present.

If I would now send a synch-signal to that remote location, I would need
to subtract the delay (1 y) from here to there from the encoded time
(e.g. 12.4.2023), hence need to measure that delay in advance.

In the other direction I would need to add the delay (if the remote
station had not removed it already).

But no such staement can be found anywhere in Einstein's text.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 07.04.2023 um 11:39 schrieb Python:
> Part I.1 of the article deals with the synchronization of clocks in
> relative rest. This is the basis that allows us to speak of a
> repository(one more thing you will never understand). The procedure that
> Einstein described is equivalent to that which Poincaré had proposed in
> his time.

*_MIG_21,_year_1980,_Mach_2.1_*
*_F_35,_year_2023-2035,_Mach_1.6_*

good news. The nato countries are buying F_35 from america, paid now,
delivered 2035, ready to be sent to ukronazia.

On 4/10/2023 6:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 10/04/2023 à 05:22, Volney a écrit :
>> How are made-up words, used by nobody else (except perhaps
>> cardiologists for an unrelated meaning) going to clarify anything?
>>>
>
> Cardiologists do not have a monopoly on words.

And why is this relevant?

>
> When the words have a meaning, do not hesitate to use them.

The jargon of cardiologists has no meaning here.