The little ant was moving at constant speed w in a 1 meter rod. Then reached the end B and, instantaneously start moving toward the A side of the road, at equal speed w.

The ant registered both time durations, going from A to B and then coming back to A. The ant thought that it was a good timing for its walk, being 2m/w.

A ghost observer, sat at the imaginary origin very far away, noticed that the rod was moving at a constant speed v (for which he used his sight to get such info at the speed of light), and said:

That little ant had to take some substance to be energized on its way back.

It took a time 1m/(c-v-w) for the ant to reach the end B, as I PERCEIVE IT..

But it took a time 1m/(c+v+w) to go back from B to A, as I PERCEIVE IT.
How could possibly take so little time its way back?

Somehow, this information reached the ant, that thought: "I know that my brain is too little and too simple, but even I know that such ghost observed is a fucking retarded. I'm a genius compared to him. Somebody buzzed me that is using something called relativity in his calculations".

On 03-May-23 8:42 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> The little ant was moving at constant speed w in a 1 meter rod. Then reached the end B and, instantaneously start moving toward the A side of the road, at equal speed w.

"the road"? This is the first mention of a road.
>
> The ant registered both time durations, going from A to B and then coming back to A. The ant thought that it was a good timing for its walk, being 2m/w.
>
> A ghost observer, sat at the imaginary origin very far away, noticed that the rod was moving at a constant speed v (for which he used his sight to get such info at the speed of light), and said:
>
> That little ant had to take some substance to be energized on its way back.
>
> It took a time 1m/(c-v-w) for the ant to reach the end B, as I PERCEIVE IT.
>
> But it took a time 1m/(c+v+w) to go back from B to A, as I PERCEIVE IT.
> How could possibly take so little time its way back?

How did c end up here?

Leaving aside the complete futility of attempting to undermine SR with
thought experiments, you might at least try to make them make sense.

Sylvia.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:42:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> It took a time 1m/(c-v-w) for the ant to reach the end B, as I PERCEIVE IT.
>
> But it took a time 1m/(c+v+w) to go back from B to A, as I PERCEIVE IT.

Cretinoid,

You just failed (again) Galileian kinematics

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 8:28:30 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:42:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >
> > It took a time 1m/(c-v-w) for the ant to reach the end B, as I PERCEIVE IT.
> >
> > But it took a time 1m/(c+v+w) to go back from B to A, as I PERCEIVE IT.
> Cretinoid,
>
> You just failed (again) Galileian kinematics

Imbecile, I'm mocking relativity and wrote this in two minutes flat.

If you care so much, put two fucking mirrors at the ends A and B, facing the ghost, and use a laser beam to measure the roundtrip.

Asshole.

Regarding Sylvia's question, c appeared by using the sense of vision, as I wrote.

What you see, miles away, takes t0A = L0A/c seconds to reach your eyes. Make the correct equation yourself.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:01:36 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 8:28:30 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:42:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It took a time 1m/(c-v-w) for the ant to reach the end B, as I PERCEIVE IT.
> > >
> > > But it took a time 1m/(c+v+w) to go back from B to A, as I PERCEIVE IT.
> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > You just failed (again) Galileian kinematics
> I am an imbecile, I wrote this in two minutes flat and I managed to make a lot of embarrassing mistakes.
Agreed

> Asshole.
>
Your new signature describes you perfectly

Den 03.05.2023 00:42, skrev Richard Hertz:
> The little ant was moving at constant speed w in a 1 meter rod. Then reached the end B and, instantaneously start moving toward the A side of the road, at equal speed w.
>
> The ant registered both time durations, going from A to B and then coming back to A. The ant thought that it was a good timing for its walk, being 2m/w.
>
> A ghost observer, sat at the imaginary origin very far away, noticed that the rod was moving at a constant speed v (for which he used his sight to get such info at the speed of light), and said:
>
> That little ant had to take some substance to be energized on its way back.
>
> It took a time 1m/(c-v-w) for the ant to reach the end B, as I PERCEIVE IT.

OK. Let's define the scenario a bit better.

Since you are at the origin far away (d is far away),
it seems by your negative v that the motion from A to B
must be towards you.

According to Galilean relativity:

At t = 0, we have:

You are at x = 0, your clock showing 0.
A is at x = d
B is at x = d - L

You will see the ant at A when your clock shows Ta = d/c
where c is the speed of light relative to you.

At the time t = L/w the ant is at B
You are at x = 0, your clock showing L/w.
A is at x = d-vt = d - Lv/w
B is at x = d - Lv/w - L = d - L(1+v/w)

You will see the ant at B when your clock shows:
Tb = L/w + d/c - L(1+v/w)/c

So you will PERCEIVE that the ant uses the time
T = Tb-Ta = L/w - L(1+v/w)/c = L/w - L/c- Lv/cw
T = L(1/w - 1/c - v/wc) = L(c-v-w)/cw

Choose whichever form you want, L/(c-v-w) isn't one of them.

>
> But it took a time 1m/(c+v+w) to go back from B to A, as I PERCEIVE IT.
> How could possibly take so little time its way back?

It couldn't, you got it wrong again.

>
> Somehow, this information reached the ant, that thought: "I know that my brain is too little and too simple, but even I know that such ghost observed is a fucking retarded. I'm a genius compared to him. Somebody buzzed me that is using something called relativity in his calculations".
>
>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 03.05.2023 03:01, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 8:28:30 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:42:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It took a time 1m/(c-v-w) for the ant to reach the end B, as I PERCEIVE IT.
>>>
>>> But it took a time 1m/(c+v+w) to go back from B to A, as I PERCEIVE IT.
>> Cretinoid,
>>
>> You just failed (again) Galileian kinematics

>
> Imbecile, I'm mocking relativity and wrote this in two minutes flat.

Well done to get a wrong answer in so short time.

A successful mocking of SR, isn't it? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 04/05/2023 à 20:46, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :
> Den 03.05.2023 00:42, skrev Richard Hertz:
>> The little ant was moving at constant speed w in a 1 meter rod. Then
>> reached the end B and, instantaneously start moving toward the A side
>> of the road, at equal speed w.
>>
>> The ant registered both time durations, going from A to B and then
>> coming back to A. The ant thought that it was a good timing for its
>> walk, being 2m/w.
>>
>> A ghost observer, sat at the imaginary origin very far away, noticed
>> that the rod was moving at a constant speed v (for which he used his
>> sight to get such info at the speed of light), and said:
>>
>> That little ant had to take some substance to be energized on its way
>> back.
>>
>> It took a time  1m/(c-v-w) for the ant to reach the end B, as I
>> PERCEIVE IT.
>
> OK. Let's define the scenario a bit better.
>
> Since you are at the origin far away (d is far away),
> it seems by your negative v that the motion from A to B
> must be towards you.
>
> According to Galilean relativity:
>
> At t = 0, we have:
>
> You are at x = 0, your clock showing 0.
> A is at x = d
> B is at x = d - L
>
> You will see the ant at A when your clock shows Ta = d/c
> where c is the speed of light relative to you.
>
> At the time t = L/w the ant is at B
> You are at x = 0, your clock showing L/w.
> A is at x = d-vt = d - Lv/w
> B is at x = d - Lv/w - L = d - L(1+v/w)
>
> You will see the ant at B when your clock shows:
> Tb = L/w + d/c - L(1+v/w)/c
>
> So you will PERCEIVE that the ant uses the time
> T = Tb-Ta =  L/w - L(1+v/w)/c = L/w - L/c- Lv/cw
> T = L(1/w - 1/c - v/wc) = L(c-v-w)/cw
>
> Choose whichever form you want, L/(c-v-w) isn't one of them.
>
>>
>> But it took a time 1m/(c+v+w) to go back from B to A, as I PERCEIVE IT.
>> How could possibly take so little time its way back?
>
> It couldn't, you got it wrong again.
>
>>
>> Somehow, this information reached the ant, that thought: "I know that
>> my brain is too little and too simple, but even I know  that such
>> ghost observed is a fucking retarded. I'm a genius compared to him.
>> Somebody buzzed me that is using something called relativity in his
>> calculations".

Nice, and quite a coincidence!

The other Richard (the one from fr.sci.physique) being, in another
way, pushing nonsense about this kind of stuff, I wrote an article
(that I will expand a little bit in the future) on *exactly* the
same point ("speed as you see it"), I may consider translating it
in English:

https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

Le 05/05/2023 à 02:17, Python a écrit :
> Le 04/05/2023 à 20:46, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :

> The other Richard (the one from fr.sci.physique)

We are now three Richards against you... LOL.
Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Richard Verret.

You're screwed. :))

R.H.

On 2023-05-05 01:14:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 05/05/2023 à 02:17, Python a écrit :
>> Le 04/05/2023 à 20:46, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :
>
>> The other Richard (the one from fr.sci.physique)
>
> We are now three Richards against you... LOL.
> Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Richard Verret.
>
> You're screwed. :))

Establishing scientific knowledge is not a democratic matter.

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

On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 09:52:06 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-05-05 01:14:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
> > Le 05/05/2023 à 02:17, Python a écrit :
> >> Le 04/05/2023 à 20:46, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :
> >
> >> The other Richard (the one from fr.sci.physique)
> >
> > We are now three Richards against you... LOL.
> > Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Richard Verret.
> >
> > You're screwed. :))
> Establishing scientific knowledge is not a democratic matter.

No church ever was democratic.

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-05-05 01:14:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Le 05/05/2023 à 02:17, Python a écrit :
>>> Le 04/05/2023 à 20:46, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :
>>
>>> The other Richard (the one from fr.sci.physique)
>>
>> We are now three Richards against you... LOL.
>> Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Richard Verret.
>>
>> You're screwed. :))
>
> Establishing scientific knowledge is not a democratic matter.

Well, at least I know three persons I may want to invite for
diner on Wednesdays nights...

Le 05/05/2023 à 13:35, Python a écrit :
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-05-05 01:14:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>
>>> Le 05/05/2023 à 02:17, Python a écrit :
>>>> Le 04/05/2023 à 20:46, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :
>>>
>>>> The other Richard (the one from fr.sci.physique)
>>>
>>> We are now three Richards against you... LOL.
>>> Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Richard Verret.
>>>
>>> You're screwed. :))
>>
>> Establishing scientific knowledge is not a democratic matter.
>
> Well, at least I know three persons I may want to invite for
> diner on Wednesdays nights...

Tu dois te repasser le film en boucle non?

Tu es un grand malade.

R.H.

Le 05/05/2023 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> Le 05/05/2023 à 13:35, Python a écrit :
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-05 01:14:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>>
>>>> Le 05/05/2023 à 02:17, Python a écrit :
>>>>> Le 04/05/2023 à 20:46, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> The other Richard (the one from fr.sci.physique)
>>>>
>>>> We are now three Richards against you... LOL.
>>>> Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Richard Verret.
>>>>
>>>> You're screwed. :))
>>>
>>> Establishing scientific knowledge is not a democratic matter.
>>
>> Well, at least I know three persons I may want to invite for
>> diner on Wednesdays nights...
>
> Tu dois te repasser le film en boucle non?

No, I've watched the movie only once. I do not want to watch
it again, it would remind me of your existence, which is a
disgrace to Humanity.

On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 17:07:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 05/05/2023 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> > Le 05/05/2023 à 13:35, Python a écrit :
> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>> On 2023-05-05 01:14:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> >>>
> >>>> Le 05/05/2023 à 02:17, Python a écrit :
> >>>>> Le 04/05/2023 à 20:46, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>> The other Richard (the one from fr.sci.physique)
> >>>>
> >>>> We are now three Richards against you... LOL.
> >>>> Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Richard Verret.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're screwed. :))
> >>>
> >>> Establishing scientific knowledge is not a democratic matter.
> >>
> >> Well, at least I know three persons I may want to invite for
> >> diner on Wednesdays nights...
> >
> > Tu dois te repasser le film en boucle non?
> No, I've watched the movie only once. I do not want to watch

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what kinds of measurement error are there?
And what a function is? And so on?

Le 05/05/2023 à 17:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 17:07:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Le 05/05/2023 à 16:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>> Le 05/05/2023 à 13:35, Python a écrit :
>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-05-05 01:14:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 05/05/2023 à 02:17, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>> Le 04/05/2023 à 20:46, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other Richard (the one from fr.sci.physique)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are now three Richards against you... LOL.
>>>>>> Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Richard Verret.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're screwed. :))
>>>>>
>>>>> Establishing scientific knowledge is not a democratic matter.
>>>>
>>>> Well, at least I know three persons I may want to invite for
>>>> diner on Wednesdays nights...
>>>
>>> Tu dois te repasser le film en boucle non?
>> No, I've watched the movie only once. I do not want to watch
>
>
> Oh

Wait your turn, Wozniak. You'll be invited on some Wednesday
too...