When the theory of relativity was born, immediately, many opponents of the
theory rose up.

These people were physicists, smart people.

They weren't morons.

They obviously understood that if you put the two main postulates
together, there was something that sounded very wrong.

They were right.

If we apply the principle of covariance, and there is no reason not to
apply it, an absurdity appears. Each watch will reciprocally consider that
the other is constantly beating slower than it.

What is true.

But then if this is true how can one of the two watches score a lower
final time than the other?

This is obviously absurd.

Until Dr. Richard Hachel's explanations, everyone was mistaken, everyone
acted the monkey.

He alone gives the right explanation, but we say "He's stupid, he's
ignorant, he's stupid".

I explain here for the 368° time.

The 369° edition is in press, and I will have to bring it out soon.

"We must not confuse the reciprocal relativistic effect of chronotropy
with the final measured time; it is not the same thing, and we are not in
the same figure frame".

This is what creates the paradox, and as long as we think like that, there
will ALWAYS be a paradox.

So how does Hachel do?

He introduces his idea of ​​anisotropy into the theory, and he
completes it (the last intellectual tip) with the idea of ​​the
covariance of metric effects (lengths and distances).

Everything then returns to normal, and there is no longer any paradox.

The theory of SR is prodigiously clear.

R.H.

M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> [snip idiotic boring rant]

Mutual time dilation is not contradictory:

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

Anyone interested by the Twins Paradoc should rather read Paul's
article instead of your nonsensical rant:

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

Le 20/03/2023 à 15:01, Python a écrit :

> Mutual time dilation is not contradictory:

Il faut utiliser les mots corrects.

"Mutual time dilation" is contradictory.

"Mutual chronotropy dilation" is NOT contradictory.

It is not the same thing.

R.H.

On Monday, 20 March 2023 at 15:01:42 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> > [snip idiotic boring rant]
>
> Mutual time dilation is not contradictory:
>
> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html
>
> Anyone interested by the Twins Paradoc should rather read Paul's

As proven many times here, the paradox is just a simple
inconsistency in the mumble of your idiot guru.
And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots improper clocks will keep measuring t'=t
in forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper seconds.

M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> Le 20/03/2023 à 15:01, Python a écrit :
>
>> Mutual time dilation is not contradictory:
>
> Il faut utiliser les mots corrects.

So why do you systematically do the opposite?

> "Mutual time dilation" is contradictory.

It's not, see the link I've provided.

> "Mutual chronotropy dilation" is NOT contradictory.

"Chronotropy" is an ill-defining term only used by you.

> It is not the same thing.

Definitely. One is a well founded theory, the other one is a
stupid rant.

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 6:39:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> When the theory of relativity was born, immediately, many opponents of the
> theory rose up.
>
> These people were physicists, smart people.
>
> They weren't morons.
>
> They obviously understood that if you put the two main postulates
> together, there was something that sounded very wrong.
>
> They were right.

About "sounding wrong", yes. But it was clear what Einstein's paper was
about: there is no contradiction if one treats Lorentz's "abstract time
variable" as real time and he provided a reasonable justification for
assuming that.

> If we apply the principle of covariance, and there is no reason not to
> apply it, an absurdity appears. Each watch will reciprocally consider that
> the other is constantly beating slower than it.
>
> What is true.
>
> But then if this is true how can one of the two watches score a lower
> final time than the other?
>
> This is obviously absurd.

Oh brother, not THAT again.

--
Jan

On Monday, 20 March 2023 at 18:17:08 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 6:39:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > When the theory of relativity was born, immediately, many opponents of the
> > theory rose up.
> >
> > These people were physicists, smart people.
> >
> > They weren't morons.
> >
> > They obviously understood that if you put the two main postulates
> > together, there was something that sounded very wrong.
> >
> > They were right.
> About "sounding wrong", yes. But it was clear what Einstein's paper was
> about: there is no contradiction if one treats Lorentz's "abstract time
> variable" as real time and he provided a reasonable justification for
> assuming that.

Fuck yourself with your "reasonable justification ",
definitions valid in the time when your idiot guru was
living and mumbling (and accepted by him) didn't
allow that.