Le 28/07/2023 à 17:58, Ken Seto a écrit :
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

>> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.

Physicists around the world unfortunately do not differentiate between
"mutual time dilation" and "mutual chronotropy dilation".

It's not the same thing.

The theory of relativity and the transformations of Poincaré speak of
dilation of chronotropy. No time dilation.

If we take one for the other, we end up with a paradox that each one comes
back with a yellower weather than the other, which is absurd.

If one speaks correctly (like Doctor Hachel), one does not cause
confusion.

On the times: Stella is 18, and Terrence 30.
On the chronotropies, the other's watch constantly, on the outward
journey, during the U-turn, and on the return journey, beats 0.6 times
slower than the observer's watch. For 30 years, Terrence's watch beats
faster than Stella's watch (the chronotropy is 0.6 seconds for her and one
second for him). For 18 years, Sfella's watch beats faster (for Stella)
than Terrence's watch (same for chonotropy).

But that is not the TIMES.

Just the way we measure the flow of time.

It is ALSO necessary to take into account the Doppler effect of the
anisochrone.

Everything then returns to normal, and we constantly have:
t'=t.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) for the two protagonists

In total, she is 18 years old, and he is 30.

R.H.

On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock
>>>>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example:
>>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B
>>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit
>>>>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is
>>>>>>>>>> a universal constant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who
>>>>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent
>>>>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for
>>>>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by
>>>>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The
>>>>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time
>>>>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds
>>>>>>>> in frame B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says.
>>
>>>>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says.
>>
>>>> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and
>>>> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong
>>>> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are).
>>>>
>>>> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative
>>>> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will
>>>> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked
>>>> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so.
>>>
>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
>>> when A and B are rejoined
>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
>> can rejoin!

> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.

I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.

> If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception..

That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as
well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it.
>
>> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are
>> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE.
>> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are
>> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after
>> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn
>> around, which is not inertial motion.
>>
>> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not
>> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The
>> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which
>> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows
>> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because
>> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an
>> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be
>> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip
>> could be.
>>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds.
>>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than
>>> the other.
>>> How can mutual time dilation explain this??????
>> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply
>> because of the turnaround event.
>>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different
>>> rates during relative motion?
>> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong.
>>
>> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.

On 7/26/2023 10:36 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:37:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:

>> Your problem is that you assume a caricature version of relativity
>> and proceed then to resolutely demolish that caricature.
>
> What is a caricature version of relativity?

It is an incorrect strawman version of SR with incorrect claims that you
made up and then proceed to knock over.

> How is it different than SR?

Your caricature version is incorrect and doesn't represent what the
actual SR theory states.

On 7/28/2023 12:46 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 28/07/2023 à 17:58, Ken Seto a écrit :
>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>
>>> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.
>
> Physicists around the world unfortunately do not differentiate between
> "mutual time dilation" and "mutual chronotropy dilation".

Probably because the phrase "mutual chronotropy dilation" is gibberish
word salad and has no meaning in physics.

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why?
> >>>>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock
> >>>>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example:
> >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B
> >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B
> >>>>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit
> >>>>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is
> >>>>>>>>>> a universal constant.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who
> >>>>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent
> >>>>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for
> >>>>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by
> >>>>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The
> >>>>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time
> >>>>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds
> >>>>>>>> in frame B.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says.
> >>
> >>>>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says.
> >>
> >>>> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and
> >>>> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong
> >>>> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are).
> >>>>
> >>>> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative
> >>>> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will
> >>>> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked
> >>>> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so.
> >>>
> >>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
> >>> when A and B are rejoined
> >> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
> >> can rejoin!
>
> > There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.

Go ahead and create one.

> > If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception..
> That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as
> well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it.

Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish.
You can't create an inertial frame on earth.

> >
> >> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are
> >> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE.
> >> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are
> >> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after
> >> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn
> >> around, which is not inertial motion.
> >>
> >> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not
> >> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The
> >> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which
> >> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows
> >> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because
> >> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an
> >> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be
> >> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip
> >> could be.
> >>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds.
> >>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than
> >>> the other.
> >>> How can mutual time dilation explain this??????
> >> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply
> >> because of the turnaround event.
> >>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different
> >>> rates during relative motion?
> >> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong.
> >>
> >> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation..

On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 21:17:05 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why?
> >>>>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock
> >>>>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example:
> >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B
> >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B
> >>>>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit
> >>>>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is
> >>>>>>>>>> a universal constant.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who
> >>>>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent
> >>>>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for
> >>>>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by
> >>>>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The
> >>>>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time
> >>>>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds
> >>>>>>>> in frame B.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says.
> >>
> >>>>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says.
> >>
> >>>> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and
> >>>> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong
> >>>> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are).
> >>>>
> >>>> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative
> >>>> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will
> >>>> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked
> >>>> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so.
> >>>
> >>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
> >>> when A and B are rejoined
> >> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
> >> can rejoin!
>
> > There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 1:53:29 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > > > Suppose a certain "bizzaro" space had only one (attractive) force
> > > > given radially by, say, F = -1/r^2.
> > > You ignored that the F in your equation is a combination of two forces.
> >
> > No. I declared it (posited) to be ONE force. This force only "pulls".
> > Are you saying that one cannot imagine just one force pulling?
> > No answer?
> > Still no answer?
> Light is only a frame in imagination. You cannot ride a wave of light.
If you could ride one, you would know the wavelengths don't change the frequency does.

Le 28/07/2023 à 21:25, Volney a écrit :
>>
>> Physicists around the world unfortunately do not differentiate between
>> "mutual time dilation" and "mutual chronotropy dilation".
>
> Probably because the phrase "mutual chronotropy dilation" is gibberish
> word salad and has no meaning in physics.

No, i dont think so.

It is not my vocation to write incomprehensible words, and from the point
of view of the accusation of the "fog of words", I am very extremely
Berkeleyan.

I'm sure you would never have believed it.

No, no, the problem with physicists is that they don't understand the
theory of reality correctly.

If you ask a physicist if he can put in his mind the notion of
four-dimensional space-time, he will say no.

It might be interesting to ask the question "why?".

Maybe it's just an abstract idea, and that structure doesn't exist in the
universe.

You tell me now that you don't understand the terms "mutual chronotropy
dilation".

It's your problem.

You tell me that you understand the term "mutual time dilation",
and I would answer you that this idea is not clear in my mind, and that if
you attribute it to bodies moving between them, that is false.

You tell me that you are confusing the terms.

It's your problem.

This is not mine.

The special theory of relativity, I understand it very well, and very
differently from the others. If others look down on me or insult me,
that's their problem.

For my part, I will always teach what I believe is right.

R.H.

Volney wrote:

> On 7/26/2023 10:36 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:37:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>> Your problem is that you assume a caricature version of relativity and
>>> proceed then to resolutely demolish that caricature.
>> What is a caricature version of relativity?
> It is an incorrect strawman version of SR with incorrect claims that you
> made up and then proceed to knock over.
>> How is it different than SR?
>
> Your caricature version is incorrect and doesn't represent what the
> actual SR theory states.

these three electricians from america doesn't know what caricature stands
for in physics. Not a wonder they are losing all wars and bomb each other
former countries with atomic bombs.

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 1:16:29 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >>>> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Why?
> > >>>>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock
> > >>>>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example:
> > >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B
> > >>>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B
> > >>>>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit
> > >>>>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is
> > >>>>>>>>>> a universal constant.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who
> > >>>>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent
> > >>>>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for
> > >>>>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by
> > >>>>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The
> > >>>>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time
> > >>>>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds
> > >>>>>>>> in frame B.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says.
> > >>
> > >>>>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says.
> > >>
> > >>>> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and
> > >>>> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong
> > >>>> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative
> > >>>> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will
> > >>>> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked
> > >>>> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
> > >>> when A and B are rejoined
> > >> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
> > >> can rejoin!
> >
> > > There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
> > I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.
> Go ahead and create one.
> > > If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception..
> > That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as
> > well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it.
> Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish.
> You can't create an inertial frame on earth.
> > >
> > >> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are
> > >> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE.
> > >> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are
> > >> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after
> > >> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn
> > >> around, which is not inertial motion.
> > >>
> > >> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not
> > >> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The
> > >> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which
> > >> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows
> > >> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because
> > >> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an
> > >> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be
> > >> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip
> > >> could be.
> > >>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds.
> > >>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than
> > >>> the other.
> > >>> How can mutual time dilation explain this??????
> > >> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply
> > >> because of the turnaround event.
> > >>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different
> > >>> rates during relative motion?
> > >> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong.
> > >>
> > >> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.
Relativity is a caricature of science.

On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
>>>>> when A and B are rejoined
>>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
>>>> can rejoin!
>>
>>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
>> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.
>
> Go ahead and create one.

Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another
one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with
inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long.
>
>>> If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception..

>> That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as
>> well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it.
>
> Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish.
> You can't create an inertial frame on earth.

I just created two of them. Do you want me to create a few hundred more,
Stupid Ken?
>
>
>>>
>>>> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are
>>>> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE.
>>>> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are
>>>> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after
>>>> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn
>>>> around, which is not inertial motion.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not
>>>> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The
>>>> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which
>>>> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows
>>>> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because
>>>> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an
>>>> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be
>>>> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip
>>>> could be.
>>>>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds.
>>>>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than
>>>>> the other.
>>>>> How can mutual time dilation explain this??????
>>>> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply
>>>> because of the turnaround event.
>>>>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different
>>>>> rates during relative motion?
>>>> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.

On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 05:59:13 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
> >>>>> when A and B are rejoined
> >>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
> >>>> can rejoin!
> >>
> >>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
> >> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.
> >
> > Go ahead and create one.
> Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another
> one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with
> inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long.
> >
> >>> If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception..
>
> >> That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as
> >> well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it.
> >
> > Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish.
> > You can't create an inertial frame on earth.
> I just created two of them.

No, stupid Mike, you didn't.They're not inertial and you're
an idiot.

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:59:13 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
> >>>>> when A and B are rejoined
> >>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
> >>>> can rejoin!
> >>
> >>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
> >> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.
> >
> > Go ahead and create one.
> Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another
> one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with
> inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long.
> >
> >>> If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception..
>
> >> That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as
> >> well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it.
> >
> > Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish.
> > You can't create an inertial frame on earth.
> I just created two of them. Do you want me to create a few hundred more,

What has a steady motion on Earth?
Even rotation is close but is subject to change from steady...

Mitchell Raemsch
> Stupid Ken?
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are
> >>>> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE.
> >>>> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are
> >>>> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after
> >>>> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn
> >>>> around, which is not inertial motion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not
> >>>> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The
> >>>> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which
> >>>> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows
> >>>> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because
> >>>> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an
> >>>> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be
> >>>> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip
> >>>> could be.
> >>>>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds.
> >>>>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than
> >>>>> the other.
> >>>>> How can mutual time dilation explain this??????
> >>>> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply
> >>>> because of the turnaround event.
> >>>>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different
> >>>>> rates during relative motion?
> >>>> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:59:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
> >>>>> when A and B are rejoined
> >>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
> >>>> can rejoin!
> >>
> >>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
> >> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.
> >
> > Go ahead and create one.
> Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another
> one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with
> inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long.

Idiot, an assertion is not a creation.
> >
> >>> If A and B accumulated different number of clock seconds then they are accumulating clock second at different rates during relative motion......no exception..
>
> >> That's gibberish, Stupid Ken. I explained the traveling twin paradox as
> >> well as mutual time dilation for you. Read it again until you understand it.
> >
> > Stu[i Mike,, what you said is is gibberish.
> > You can't create an inertial frame on earth.
> I just created two of them. Do you want me to create a few hundred more,
> Stupid Ken?
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are
> >>>> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE.
> >>>> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are
> >>>> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after
> >>>> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn
> >>>> around, which is not inertial motion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not
> >>>> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The
> >>>> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which
> >>>> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows
> >>>> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because
> >>>> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an
> >>>> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be
> >>>> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip
> >>>> could be.
> >>>>> each will accumulated a different number of seconds.
> >>>>> This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than
> >>>>> the other.
> >>>>> How can mutual time dilation explain this??????
> >>>> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply
> >>>> because of the turnaround event.
> >>>>> Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different
> >>>>> rates during relative motion?
> >>>> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.

On 7/29/2023 1:05 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:59:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
>>>>>>> when A and B are rejoined
>>>>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
>>>>>> can rejoin!
>>>>
>>>>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
>>>> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.
>>>
>>> Go ahead and create one.
>> Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another
>> one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with
>> inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long.
>
> Idiot,

Why, yes you are.

> an assertion is not a creation.

Since a frame is just a bunch of vectors and numbers, not a physical
object, all I have to do to create one is to just think about it.
(you do know what a vector is, right? What, you don't? That's right,
they don't teach vectors in third grade math)

On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 20:23:22 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/29/2023 1:05 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:59:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
> >>>>>>> when A and B are rejoined
> >>>>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
> >>>>>> can rejoin!
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
> >>>> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.
> >>>
> >>> Go ahead and create one.
> >> Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another
> >> one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with
> >> inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long.
> >
> > Idiot,
> Why, yes you are.
> > an assertion is not a creation.
> Since a frame is just a bunch of vectors and numbers, not a physical

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.
No inertial frames according to your idiot guru. They
can only exist where no gravity is present, i.e nowhere.

On 7/28/2023 5:26 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 28/07/2023 à 21:25, Volney a écrit :
>>>
>>> Physicists around the world unfortunately do not differentiate
>>> between "mutual time dilation" and "mutual chronotropy dilation".
>>
>> Probably because the phrase "mutual chronotropy dilation" is gibberish
>> word salad and has no meaning in physics.
>
> No, i dont think so.
>
> It is not my vocation to write incomprehensible words,

So why do you do it? "Chronotropy" is an obscure medical term and has
nothing to do with mutual time dilation.

> No, no, the problem with physicists is that they don't understand the
> theory of reality correctly.

Well, you certainly aren't helping any by trying to use nonsense language.

[snip unrelated babbling]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 1:10:44 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 20:23:22 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > On 7/29/2023 1:05 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:59:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 7/28/2023 4:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:17:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >>>> On 7/28/2023 11:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
> > >>>>>>> when A and B are rejoined
> > >>>>>> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B
> > >>>>>> can rejoin!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> There is no inertial frame on earth's surface.
> > >>>> I can create inertial frames all day long, but that is not relevant here.
> > >>>
> > >>> Go ahead and create one.
> > >> Ok, done. There it goes, right through the floor! I'll create another
> > >> one. Again, there it goes, right through the floor!! The problem with
> > >> inertial frames on earth is they don't stick around for very long.
> > >
> > > Idiot,
> > Why, yes you are.
> > > an assertion is not a creation.
> > Since a frame is just a bunch of vectors and numbers, not a physical
> And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
> is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot,
> stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
> moronic religion.
> No inertial frames according to your idiot guru. They
> can only exist where no gravity is present, i.e nowhere.

Correct. Einstein's inertial frames don't manifest.
Out in deep space there is gravity where there
can be no frame comparison. Einstein over looked
what creates the unsteady motion is a motion rule.

Le 29/07/2023 à 23:03, Volney a écrit :
> On 7/28/2023 5:26 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

>> It is not my vocation to write incomprehensible words,
>
> So why do you do it? "Chronotropy" is an obscure medical term and has
> nothing to do with mutual time dilation.
>
>> No, no, the problem with physicists is that they don't understand the
>> theory of reality correctly.
>
> Well, you certainly aren't helping any by trying to use nonsense language.
>
> [snip unrelated babbling]

Thank you for your answer, but I want to clarify once again, that I am NOT
AT ALL a man who seeks to write anything, or who wants to be the guru.

The reverse is true, and I am the most rational of men.

I have also worked for decades in a profession where mistakes can be
humanly dramatic and where we are not used to doing or saying anything.
Moreover, I am very much in agreement with Berkeley's theory on the veil
of words, and I am looking for two things: first, to teach as correctly as
possible and to remove from human ascience, precisely, all the words that
mean nothing. say and obscure concepts.

I am even in complete agreement with Paul B. Andersen, when he says that
it is necessary to make baby steps.

Finally, I recognize the superiority of experience over theory.
Always.

And if I sometimes explain that the theory of relativity as currently
described can only be false, and that there is not even a need for
experience to prove it, it is because theoretically the notions used are
contradictory .

We cannot say that a figure is round and square at the same time.

You cannot say that a swimming pool is empty and full at the same time.

However, precisely in RS, we speak of relativistic covariance.
The relativistic covariance is incompatible with a correct description
of Langevin's traveler if one practices this in apparent mode. It's
absurd.

I've been saying it for years, you have to apply a full covariance, and
it's impossible if you put the wrong equation
contraction of distances D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) and this theory has no
chance of being true explained in this way.

Finally, you talk about chronotropy.

I don't understand why physicists can have special problems with this
term.

Doctors understand this perfectly, and they are no more or less
intelligent than astrophysicists or relativist theorists.

This term must absolutely enter the vocabulary of physicists.

It is not only logical and understandable (unless fired on purpose) and
designates what it means.

To say "chronotropy is relative by change of frame of reference" is still
not bitter to drink. This means that the internal mechanism of the watches
will beat differently depending on the relative speed of the reference
frames between them. Each referential observing reciprocally that the
watches of the other referential have a negative chronotropic effect on
its own, in short, that they physically beat less quickly.

This is called the gamma effect on durations.

It is also called "internal Doppler effect" or transverse Doppler effect,
but the term "transverse" is equivocal, since the effect takes place in
all the directions that the object can take in space and not only
transverse, it is an internal effect.

This is very important to understand (but very simple), as it is NOT the
only relativistic effect to consider.

A second effect is obvious: the anisochronous effect, which is a first
degree effect, and the longitudinal Doppler effect strictly speaking.
The better things are said, the more beautiful and precise it is.

Do not tell me that my terms shock you or are incomprehensible to you, I
will not believe you.

Anisochrony, relativity of chronotropy, internal Doppler effect, are terms
that physicists should use commonly.

These are not terms that go beyond them.

R.H.

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 3:38:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 29/07/2023 à 23:03, Volney a écrit :
> > On 7/28/2023 5:26 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> >> It is not my vocation to write incomprehensible words,
> >
> > So why do you do it? "Chronotropy" is an obscure medical term and has
> > nothing to do with mutual time dilation.
> >
> >> No, no, the problem with physicists is that they don't understand the
> >> theory of reality correctly.
> >
> > Well, you certainly aren't helping any by trying to use nonsense language.
> >
> > [snip unrelated babbling]
> Thank you for your answer, but I want to clarify once again, that I am NOT
> AT ALL a man who seeks to write anything, or who wants to be the guru.
>
> The reverse is true, and I am the most rational of men.
>
> I have also worked for decades in a profession where mistakes can be
> humanly dramatic and where we are not used to doing or saying anything.
> Moreover, I am very much in agreement with Berkeley's theory on the veil
> of words, and I am looking for two things: first, to teach as correctly as
> possible and to remove from human ascience, precisely, all the words that
> mean nothing. say and obscure concepts.
>
> I am even in complete agreement with Paul B. Andersen, when he says that
> it is necessary to make baby steps.
>
> Finally, I recognize the superiority of experience over theory.
> Always.
>
> And if I sometimes explain that the theory of relativity as currently
> described can only be false, and that there is not even a need for
> experience to prove it, it is because theoretically the notions used are
> contradictory .
>
> We cannot say that a figure is round and square at the same time.
>
> You cannot say that a swimming pool is empty and full at the same time.
>
> However, precisely in RS, we speak of relativistic covariance.
> The relativistic covariance is incompatible with a correct description
> of Langevin's traveler if one practices this in apparent mode. It's
> absurd.
>
> I've been saying it for years, you have to apply a full covariance, and
> it's impossible if you put the wrong equation
> contraction of distances D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) and this theory has no
> chance of being true explained in this way.
>
> Finally, you talk about chronotropy.
>
> I don't understand why physicists can have special problems with this
> term.
>
> Doctors understand this perfectly, and they are no more or less
> intelligent than astrophysicists or relativist theorists.
>
> This term must absolutely enter the vocabulary of physicists.
>
> It is not only logical and understandable (unless fired on purpose) and
> designates what it means.
>
> To say "chronotropy is relative by change of frame of reference" is still
> not bitter to drink. This means that the internal mechanism of the watches
> will beat differently depending on the relative speed of the reference
> frames between them. Each referential observing reciprocally that the
> watches of the other referential have a negative chronotropic effect on
> its own, in short, that they physically beat less quickly.
>
> This is called the gamma effect on durations.
>
> It is also called "internal Doppler effect" or transverse Doppler effect,
> but the term "transverse" is equivocal, since the effect takes place in
> all the directions that the object can take in space and not only
> transverse, it is an internal effect.
>
> This is very important to understand (but very simple), as it is NOT the
> only relativistic effect to consider.
>
> A second effect is obvious: the anisochronous effect, which is a first
> degree effect, and the longitudinal Doppler effect strictly speaking.
> The better things are said, the more beautiful and precise it is.
>
> Do not tell me that my terms shock you or are incomprehensible to you, I
> will not believe you.
>
> Anisochrony, relativity of chronotropy, internal Doppler effect, are terms
> that physicists should use commonly.
>
> These are not terms that go beyond them.
>
> R.H.
Have you Read Roger Schlafly's How Einstein Ruined Physics? He credits Poincare for relativity.

Le 30/07/2023 à 01:08, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 3:38:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 29/07/2023 à 23:03, Volney a écrit :
>> > On 7/28/2023 5:26 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> >> It is not my vocation to write incomprehensible words,
>> >
>> > So why do you do it? "Chronotropy" is an obscure medical term and has
>> > nothing to do with mutual time dilation.
>> >
>> >> No, no, the problem with physicists is that they don't understand the
>> >> theory of reality correctly.
>> >
>> > Well, you certainly aren't helping any by trying to use nonsense language.
>> >
>> > [snip unrelated babbling]
>> Thank you for your answer, but I want to clarify once again, that I am NOT
>> AT ALL a man who seeks to write anything, or who wants to be the guru.
>>
>> The reverse is true, and I am the most rational of men.
>>
>> I have also worked for decades in a profession where mistakes can be
>> humanly dramatic and where we are not used to doing or saying anything.
>> Moreover, I am very much in agreement with Berkeley's theory on the veil
>> of words, and I am looking for two things: first, to teach as correctly as
>> possible and to remove from human ascience, precisely, all the words that
>> mean nothing. say and obscure concepts.
>>
>> I am even in complete agreement with Paul B. Andersen, when he says that
>> it is necessary to make baby steps.
>>
>> Finally, I recognize the superiority of experience over theory.
>> Always.
>>
>> And if I sometimes explain that the theory of relativity as currently
>> described can only be false, and that there is not even a need for
>> experience to prove it, it is because theoretically the notions used are
>> contradictory .
>>
>> We cannot say that a figure is round and square at the same time.
>>
>> You cannot say that a swimming pool is empty and full at the same time.
>>
>> However, precisely in RS, we speak of relativistic covariance.
>> The relativistic covariance is incompatible with a correct description
>> of Langevin's traveler if one practices this in apparent mode. It's
>> absurd.
>>
>> I've been saying it for years, you have to apply a full covariance, and
>> it's impossible if you put the wrong equation
>> contraction of distances D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) and this theory has no
>> chance of being true explained in this way.
>>
>> Finally, you talk about chronotropy.
>>
>> I don't understand why physicists can have special problems with this
>> term.
>>
>> Doctors understand this perfectly, and they are no more or less
>> intelligent than astrophysicists or relativist theorists.
>>
>> This term must absolutely enter the vocabulary of physicists.
>>
>> It is not only logical and understandable (unless fired on purpose) and
>> designates what it means.
>>
>> To say "chronotropy is relative by change of frame of reference" is still
>> not bitter to drink. This means that the internal mechanism of the watches
>> will beat differently depending on the relative speed of the reference
>> frames between them. Each referential observing reciprocally that the
>> watches of the other referential have a negative chronotropic effect on
>> its own, in short, that they physically beat less quickly.
>>
>> This is called the gamma effect on durations.
>>
>> It is also called "internal Doppler effect" or transverse Doppler effect,
>> but the term "transverse" is equivocal, since the effect takes place in
>> all the directions that the object can take in space and not only
>> transverse, it is an internal effect.
>>
>> This is very important to understand (but very simple), as it is NOT the
>> only relativistic effect to consider.
>>
>> A second effect is obvious: the anisochronous effect, which is a first
>> degree effect, and the longitudinal Doppler effect strictly speaking.
>> The better things are said, the more beautiful and precise it is.
>>
>> Do not tell me that my terms shock you or are incomprehensible to you, I
>> will not believe you.
>>
>> Anisochrony, relativity of chronotropy, internal Doppler effect, are terms
>> that physicists should use commonly.
>>
>> These are not terms that go beyond them.
>>
>> R.H.
> Have you Read Roger Schlafly's How Einstein Ruined Physics? He credits Poincare
> for relativity.

Einstein was a simple media creation.
All his equations and concepts are copied from Poincaré.
Several honest researchers have wondered why Einstein never quoted
Poincaré, and why many of Poincaré's works did not appear or no longer
appear in European and even French national archives.
Colleagues from Poincaré pointed out that this was not "normal".
There existed and still exists today, a ferocious censorship on Poincaré
because it overshadows the idea that Einstein was a God.
Jules Leveugle said it not long ago "It couldn't be innocent, it was
wanted".
Even today a French physicist has written a book on the origins of RR
citing some fifty names, but nowhere, even in a footer paragraph, is
Poincaré mentioned.
It is necessarily voluntary.
I attach here a pdf for proof: Nowhere do we talk about Poincaré. The
ormerta is total on 56 pages. Poincaré does not exist.
It's simply incredible coming from a fellow French professor of the
scientist. It is necessarily voluntary.

cours_TD_phys_601_pc.pdf

R.H.

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 4:31:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 30/07/2023 à 01:08, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 3:38:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 29/07/2023 à 23:03, Volney a écrit :
> >> > On 7/28/2023 5:26 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>
> >> >> It is not my vocation to write incomprehensible words,
> >> >
> >> > So why do you do it? "Chronotropy" is an obscure medical term and has
> >> > nothing to do with mutual time dilation.
> >> >
> >> >> No, no, the problem with physicists is that they don't understand the
> >> >> theory of reality correctly.
> >> >
> >> > Well, you certainly aren't helping any by trying to use nonsense language.
> >> >
> >> > [snip unrelated babbling]
> >> Thank you for your answer, but I want to clarify once again, that I am NOT
> >> AT ALL a man who seeks to write anything, or who wants to be the guru.
> >>
> >> The reverse is true, and I am the most rational of men.
> >>
> >> I have also worked for decades in a profession where mistakes can be
> >> humanly dramatic and where we are not used to doing or saying anything..
> >> Moreover, I am very much in agreement with Berkeley's theory on the veil
> >> of words, and I am looking for two things: first, to teach as correctly as
> >> possible and to remove from human ascience, precisely, all the words that
> >> mean nothing. say and obscure concepts.
> >>
> >> I am even in complete agreement with Paul B. Andersen, when he says that
> >> it is necessary to make baby steps.
> >>
> >> Finally, I recognize the superiority of experience over theory.
> >> Always.
> >>
> >> And if I sometimes explain that the theory of relativity as currently
> >> described can only be false, and that there is not even a need for
> >> experience to prove it, it is because theoretically the notions used are
> >> contradictory .
> >>
> >> We cannot say that a figure is round and square at the same time.
> >>
> >> You cannot say that a swimming pool is empty and full at the same time..
> >>
> >> However, precisely in RS, we speak of relativistic covariance.
> >> The relativistic covariance is incompatible with a correct description
> >> of Langevin's traveler if one practices this in apparent mode. It's
> >> absurd.
> >>
> >> I've been saying it for years, you have to apply a full covariance, and
> >> it's impossible if you put the wrong equation
> >> contraction of distances D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) and this theory has no
> >> chance of being true explained in this way.
> >>
> >> Finally, you talk about chronotropy.
> >>
> >> I don't understand why physicists can have special problems with this
> >> term.
> >>
> >> Doctors understand this perfectly, and they are no more or less
> >> intelligent than astrophysicists or relativist theorists.
> >>
> >> This term must absolutely enter the vocabulary of physicists.
> >>
> >> It is not only logical and understandable (unless fired on purpose) and
> >> designates what it means.
> >>
> >> To say "chronotropy is relative by change of frame of reference" is still
> >> not bitter to drink. This means that the internal mechanism of the watches
> >> will beat differently depending on the relative speed of the reference
> >> frames between them. Each referential observing reciprocally that the
> >> watches of the other referential have a negative chronotropic effect on
> >> its own, in short, that they physically beat less quickly.
> >>
> >> This is called the gamma effect on durations.
> >>
> >> It is also called "internal Doppler effect" or transverse Doppler effect,
> >> but the term "transverse" is equivocal, since the effect takes place in
> >> all the directions that the object can take in space and not only
> >> transverse, it is an internal effect.
> >>
> >> This is very important to understand (but very simple), as it is NOT the
> >> only relativistic effect to consider.
> >>
> >> A second effect is obvious: the anisochronous effect, which is a first
> >> degree effect, and the longitudinal Doppler effect strictly speaking.
> >> The better things are said, the more beautiful and precise it is.
> >>
> >> Do not tell me that my terms shock you or are incomprehensible to you, I
> >> will not believe you.
> >>
> >> Anisochrony, relativity of chronotropy, internal Doppler effect, are terms
> >> that physicists should use commonly.
> >>
> >> These are not terms that go beyond them.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> > Have you Read Roger Schlafly's How Einstein Ruined Physics? He credits Poincare
> > for relativity.
> Einstein was a simple media creation.
> All his equations and concepts are copied from Poincaré.
> Several honest researchers have wondered why Einstein never quoted
> Poincaré, and why many of Poincaré's works did not appear or no longer
> appear in European and even French national archives.
> Colleagues from Poincaré pointed out that this was not "normal".
> There existed and still exists today, a ferocious censorship on Poincaré
> because it overshadows the idea that Einstein was a God.
> Jules Leveugle said it not long ago "It couldn't be innocent, it was
> wanted".
> Even today a French physicist has written a book on the origins of RR
> citing some fifty names, but nowhere, even in a footer paragraph, is
> Poincaré mentioned.
> It is necessarily voluntary.
> I attach here a pdf for proof: Nowhere do we talk about Poincaré. The
> ormerta is total on 56 pages. Poincaré does not exist.
> It's simply incredible coming from a fellow French professor of the
> scientist. It is necessarily voluntary.
>
> cours_TD_phys_601_pc.pdf
>
> R.H.
Relativity functions as an ideology, and ideologies censor, silence, and deplatform their opponents.

On 2023-07-29 23:31:52 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:

> Several honest researchers have wondered why Einstein never quoted
> Poincaré, and why many of Poincaré's works did not appear or no longer
> appear in European and even French national archives.
> Colleagues from Poincaré pointed out that this was not "normal".
> There existed and still exists today, a ferocious censorship on Poincaré
> because it overshadows the idea that Einstein was a God.
> Jules Leveugle said it not long ago "It couldn't be innocent, it was wanted".
> Even today a French physicist

Who?

> has written a book

Reference?

> on the origins of RR citing some fifty names, but nowhere, even in a
> footer paragraph, is Poincaré mentioned.
> It is necessarily voluntary.
> I attach here a pdf for proof: Nowhere do we talk about Poincaré. The
> ormerta is total on 56 pages. Poincaré does not exist.
> It's simply incredible coming from a fellow French professor of the
> scientist. It is necessarily voluntary.
>
> cours_TD_phys_601_pc.pdf

That's like one of Ken Seto's links. It's worthless.

Textbooks of the future won't mention "Dr." Hachel, but it will be for
different reasons.

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

Volney wrote:

>> It is not my vocation to write incomprehensible words,
>
> So why do you do it? "Chronotropy" is an obscure medical term and has
> nothing to do with mutual time dilation.
>
>> No, no, the problem with physicists is that they don't understand the
>> theory of reality correctly.
>
> Well, you certainly aren't helping any by trying to use nonsense
> language.

how the fuck you retards can live in that 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆, teaching you
𝘁𝗼_𝗯𝗲_𝗴𝗮𝘆, when there are 𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 in fucking america?? Families, as
such with parents, kids, grandparents, close relatives as uncles, aunts,
cousins etc.

and how the named Einstine was 𝗮𝗻_"𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗻", when he didn't passed a
PhD, as one of the main requirements to the title. Kiss my ass.

Le 30/07/2023 à 09:51, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-07-29 23:31:52 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:

> Textbooks of the future won't mention "Dr." Hachel, but it will be for
> different reasons.

I think so too.

However, on closer inspection, Dr. Hachel's equations, his concepts and
his precisions have an enormous interest in the special theory of
relativity.
No man in the world has been so precise and so clear.
He is clearly one of the great teachers, of those who really brought heavy
stones (the two most substantial contributions were made by Poincaré and
by Hachel). Einstein only copied Poincaré; Lorentz provided an inedible
and faux pavement, and Minkowshi drifted into abstract painting.
Rest the question: Will Poincaré be increasingly ignored or even
distorted and Einstein overvalued? Obviously. Should Hachel remain totally
unknown in the story? It's obvious.

R.H.