Eisntein said:

------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line
of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the
point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for

an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,

in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common
“time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by
definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
“time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
..

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------

I don't understand anything this man is saying.

Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
anything at all?

R.H.

On 2024-02-20 12:58:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Eisntein said:
>
> ------------------
> We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of
> thought.
> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
> time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions
> of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
> the point B
> of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
> possible for
>
> an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neigh-
> bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
>
> in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined
> only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
> A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by
> definition
> that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it
> requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
> time” tA from
> A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
> and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
> .
>
> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>
> tB − tA = tA − tB.
> ---------------------
>
> I don't understand anything this man is saying.
>
> Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
> anything at all?
>
> R.H.

Note the word "more" on the first line. It means that the practicality of
what follows is compared to the parcticality of what precedes.

--
Mikko

Le 20/02/2024 à 13:58, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Eisntein said:
>
> ------------------
> We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
> line of
> thought.
> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
> determine the
> time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
> positions
> of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
> the point B
> of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
> possible for
>
> an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
> neigh-
> bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
> compare,
>
> in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
> defined
> only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
> A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by
> definition
> that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
> “time” it
> requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time”
> tA from
> A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
> direction of A,
> and arrive again at A at the “A time” t

You cut the sentence, he wrote "at the “A time” t'_A".

>
> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>
> tB − tA = tA − tB.
> ---------------------

No he didn't wrote that.

He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"

> I don't understand anything this man is saying.

Sad, it is actually quite obvious.

> Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't understand
> anything at all?

You are a moron.

Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :

> No he didn't wrote that.
> He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"

C'est là où est le problème.

Je ne suis jamais parvenu à me hisser moi-même à un tel génie.

> You are a moron.

oh no.

Snifff...

R.H.

On 2024-02-20 17:06:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
>
>> No he didn't wrote that.
>
>> He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
>
> C'est là où est le problème.

It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
in opposite directions.

--
Mikko

Le 21/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2024-02-20 17:06:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
>>
>>> No he didn't wrote that.
>>
>>> He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
>>
>> C'est là où est le problème.
>
> It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
> in opposite directions.

The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things very
poorly.
And this has been happening for 120 years now.
From the first words of the precis, where we talk about watch
synchronization, everything is very poorly said.
What is synchronizing a watch? How to synchronize it? On which?
I have always said that it is absolutely impossible to synchronize two
watches with each other. I said “between them”. It's impossible.
You must then choose a third watch, a third observer, to synchronize them
"between the two of them and FOR this third observer".
I am criticized for not knowing that the GPS system works.
But I know that the GPS system works, and that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.
What happens to the GPS system? We synchronize all terrestrial watches on
a virtual watch placed in a virtual fourth spatial dimension, and placed
virtually equidistant from all the points of our three D marker.
We then obtain an abstract, but useful, synchronization.
We come back to the fact that two separate watches can never be in tune,
and find themselves in the same absolute present time.
This is an a priori, a caprice.
It doesn't exist in nature.
It is moreover this caprice, this a priori of the plan of present time,
which results in Langevin's paradox which no one (except me) has ever
explained correctly.
Remove the whim, you remove the paradox.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 21/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
>> On 2024-02-20 17:06:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>
>>> Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
>>>
>>>> No he didn't wrote that.
>>>
>>>> He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
>>>
>>> C'est là où est le problème.
>>
>> It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
>> in opposite directions.

> The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things very
> poorly.
> And this has been happening for 120 years now.
> From the first words of the precis, where we talk about watch
> synchronization, everything is very poorly said.
> What is synchronizing a watch? How to synchronize it? On which?
> I have always said that it is absolutely impossible to synchronize two
> watches with each other. I said “between them”. It's impossible.
> You must then choose a third watch, a third observer, to synchronize them
> "between the two of them and FOR this third observer".
> I am criticized for not knowing that the GPS system works.
> But I know that the GPS system works, and that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.
> What happens to the GPS system? We synchronize all terrestrial watches on
> a virtual watch placed in a virtual fourth spatial dimension, and placed
> virtually equidistant from all the points of our three D marker.
> We then obtain an abstract, but useful, synchronization.
> We come back to the fact that two separate watches can never be in tune,
> and find themselves in the same absolute present time.
> This is an a priori, a caprice.
> It doesn't exist in nature.

So GPS doesn't exist in nature? What a discovery.

On 2024-02-21 10:36:38 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 21/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
>> On 2024-02-20 17:06:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>
>>> Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
>>>
>>>> No he didn't wrote that.
>>>
>>>> He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
>>>
>>> C'est là où est le problème.
>>
>> It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
>> in opposite directions.
>
> The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things
> very poorly.

You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
books.

--
Mikko

Le 21/02/2024 à 18:30, mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Le 21/02/2024 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
>>> On 2024-02-20 17:06:24 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>>
>>>> Le 20/02/2024 à 15:41, Python a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> No he didn't wrote that.
>>>>
>>>>> He wrote : "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B"
>>>>
>>>> C'est là où est le problème.
>>>
>>> It only means that t_A and t'_A are equally distant from t_B but
>>> in opposite directions.
>
>> The problem with the theory of relativity is that it explains things very
>> poorly.
>> And this has been happening for 120 years now.
>> From the first words of the precis, where we talk about watch
>> synchronization, everything is very poorly said.
>> What is synchronizing a watch? How to synchronize it? On which?
>> I have always said that it is absolutely impossible to synchronize two
>> watches with each other. I said “between them”. It's impossible.
>> You must then choose a third watch, a third observer, to synchronize them
>> "between the two of them and FOR this third observer".
>> I am criticized for not knowing that the GPS system works.
>> But I know that the GPS system works, and that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.
>> What happens to the GPS system? We synchronize all terrestrial watches on
>> a virtual watch placed in a virtual fourth spatial dimension, and placed
>> virtually equidistant from all the points of our three D marker.
>> We then obtain an abstract, but useful, synchronization.
>> We come back to the fact that two separate watches can never be in tune,
>> and find themselves in the same absolute present time.
>> This is an a priori, a caprice.
>> It doesn't exist in nature.
>
> So GPS doesn't exist in nature? What a discovery.

Merci de ne pas répondre n'importe quoi à mes posts.

R.H.

Le 21/02/2024 à 19:15, Mikko a écrit :
>
> You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
> true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
> books.

Yes, it's true.

I noticed this about forty years ago.

Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but
most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that the
author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand clearly
what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he doesn't
understand.

I personally wanted to re-explain all of this from the basics, and using
clear concepts.

I encounter fat laughter, threats, censures, and idiotic taunts.

However, what I am saying is very obvious and very obvi.

We must review and clarify the definition of “simultaneity”,
anisotropy and chronotropy.

We must describe the Langevin as I do it (no one in the world is capable
of doing it correctly except me), we must review the proper times in
accelerated frames of reference, and the instantaneous observable speeds
which are incorrect, we must accept the transformations
that I gave for the rotating frames of reference.

Yes, we must first clearly redefine things, and start from the notion of
synchronization of watches, explained very confusedly by Einstein, which
does not take into account universal anisochrony.

It is as if a physicist wanted to talk about the fall of bodies, without
positing the correct equation for universal gravitation. We end up with
something poorly put together, and which no one clearly understands.

This is why the SR has been stuck in bad concepts for 120 years without
anyone understanding anything anymore.

Anyone who says they clearly understand are liars or idiots. They then get
angry with me when I tell them, but quickly run away if I ask them to
account.

R.H.

On 2/21/2024 2:17 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Merci de ne pas répondre n'importe quoi à mes posts.

Why are you asking the janitor to clean your toilets for free?

Volney wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 2:17 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Merci de ne pas répondre n'importe quoi à mes posts.
>
> Why are you asking the janitor to clean your toilets for free?

lol, the wankers of amrica are fucked up, abruptly lol.

𝗨𝗦_𝗗𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮, what a gay..
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/2HpJQv3Ru7Mz

𝗬𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻_𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗸𝘀_𝗮𝗻_𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 lol
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/KqQcqgFe3Cu2

𝗨𝗦_𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀_𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘂𝗽_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸_𝘂𝗽_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/rzkzcFJX1lVV

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗮_𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗺_𝗺𝗮𝗻'𝘀_𝗰𝗮𝗿_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗮_𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗶_-_𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/XUNIFx3gMEIR

𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰_𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲
𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/ZEge33Izi84k

𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗻𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀_𝗢𝗻_𝗚𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀,
'𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗜𝘀_𝗔_𝗟𝗼𝘁_𝗦𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘇𝗶𝗲𝗿_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻,_𝗔_𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗗𝗼𝘄𝗻'
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/3MZIMLhMpFW7

‘𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀’_𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻_𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮,_𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗠
Justin Trudeau wants “massive changes” in the news landscape
https://r%74.com/news/592897-justin-trudeau-mainstream-media/

As Julian said, almost all wars are started by legacy media lies -
'weapons of mass destruction' exemplify that truth. The power and agenda
of corrupt oligarchs programming millions of minds dies with the boomer
generation and there's nothing this weak little Nazi lover can do about
it. Totalitarians like him fear and despise those who speak the truth, as
Julian's plight illustrates.

Sure, a repeat convicted ethics violator is going to tell Canadians what
is what.

𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗡_𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡_𝗧𝗢_𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧_𝗣𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗡:_𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲_𝗲𝗻𝗱_𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴.
Dear President, when will you come to the rescue of western civilisation,
drowning under the sewerage of US zionism, and reveal the FACT, it was
sxmitic zionists and their zionist-neocons who ochestrated 9/11?
Thank you, Humanity. May the Gods of the Cosmos bless Mother Russia and
President Putin.

Justin Trudeau is an embarrassment to his father and his country.
Conspiracy theorists don't threaten MSM. The press that rigidly acts as a
stenographer for the government does.

Truddie must go along with MSM

Conspiracy Theory: Anything the cabal doesn't want you to know.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗘𝗨_‘𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸’_–_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃
PM Denis Shmigal says his country has lost a third of its economy and some
3.5 million jobs since the start of the conflict with Russia
https://r%74.com/russia/592859-ukrainians-not-coming-back/

The Japs are experts at rebuilding totally flattened cities. Never were
two atom bombs better spent. Degenerate cruel animals.

12 million of Uki free-loaders have ravaged Poland and they won't go
anywhere. They contribute to nothing but rise in crime rate as well as
destroying families with young Uki females enticing married Polish men.
Economically, their long-term damage to Polish economy and social welfare
is akin to what is happening in the USA by Latin migrants.

Just another Zionist crying in his milk.

Maybe the Japs can send over some of their dying population to help out 😂

Don't worry, the EU WEF Cabal will flood Ukraine with new types of
refugees after the War. That is the plan.

On 2024-02-21 19:31:31 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 21/02/2024 à 19:15, Mikko a écrit :
>>
>> You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
>> true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
>> books.
>
> Yes, it's true.
>
> I noticed this about forty years ago.
>
> Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but
> most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that
> the author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand
> clearly what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he
> doesn't understand.

Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
physical meaning.

--
Mikko

Richard Hachel wrote:

> We must describe the Langevin as I do it

No, we must understand, first of all, that
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX *** in the Langevin gedanken.

Although twins A and B have different experiences,
both twins are in complete agreement on how many seconds
have passed on A's clock, and both twins are in complete
agreement on how many seconds have passed on B's clock.

There would only be paradox if A observed a different
number of seconds passing on B's clock than B measured,
or if B observed a different number of seconds passing
on A's clock than A measured.

But they do not have any such disagreement. See my
discussion here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox

No disagreement = no paradox

On Thursday 22 February 2024 at 10:30:59 UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-21 19:31:31 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
> > Le 21/02/2024 à 19:15, Mikko a écrit :
> >>
> >> You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
> >> true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
> >> books.
> >
> > Yes, it's true.
> >
> > I noticed this about forty years ago.
> >
> > Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but
> > most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that
> > the author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand
> > clearly what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he
> > doesn't understand.
> Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
> inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
> physical meaning.

Oh, can it really?
"for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2, where c - the longest,
a and b the shorter sides."
Let's see you verifying its correctness. Will you, poor
halfbrain?

On Thursday 22 February 2024 at 13:41:20 UTC+1, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

> Although twins A and B have different experiences,
> both twins are in complete agreement on how many seconds
> have passed on A's clock, and both twins are in complete
> agreement on how many seconds have passed on B's clock.

And, as anyone can check in GPS, in the reality
these numbers have nothing in common with the
inconsistent prophecies of your idiot guru.

Le 22/02/2024 à 10:30, Mikko a écrit :
>
> Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
> inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
> physical meaning.
>
> Mikko

I don't know the point of abstract mathematics, and maybe you're right.
But my point is that in some cases they are both unnecessary and wrong.
Consider the case of the theory of special relativity. What does Doctor
Hachel say who, like Poincaré, has the fault of being French?
He says that his abstractions are useless because we do things faster and
better with simple school-level calculations.
He further says that the results obtained by abstract concepts are false.
Let's take the proper time of objects in constant acceleration, such as
for example the Tau Ceti traveler (a=10m/s²,x=12al): physicists find a
proper time of less than 4 years, while it is 4,776 years , and a final
instantaneous speed of around 0.995c while it is only 0.980c.
The perfection and beauty of mathematics lose all their interest if they
are applied to abstract doctrines and false physics.

R.H.

Le 22/02/2024 à 13:37, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> We must describe the Langevin as I do it
>
> No, we must understand, first of all, that
> *** THERE IS NO PARADOX *** in the Langevin gedanken.

To judge what a man (here me) says, you must first understand this man.
If we give a man who does not know music theory the score of Mozart's
21st, he will only see signs written on paper, and will understand nothing
of the beauty of the work.
If I give you the explanations of Langevin's traveler, it is clear that
you will not be able to appreciate the beauty of the concepts.
For this, you would have to study and understand what I am saying.
There is in Langevin's traveler a paradox that is irresolvable without
going through Hachel. Physicists, not knowing what to do with it, divert
the problem by proposing a very welcome gap time at the time of the
U-turn. This is obviously not very serious, friends, and it's sweeping
dust under the rug. I don't practice such things, and yet, at home, Stella
is 18 years old like at yours, and 30 is definitely 30.
In a logical scientific universe, we had to ask ourselves: but how does he
do it?
Or: Sir, sit with us for a few moments and explain yourself.
I say "in a logical scientific universe.

R.H.

On 2024-02-22 14:08:59 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 22/02/2024 à 10:30, Mikko a écrit :
>>
>> Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
>> inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
>> physical meaning.
>>
>> Mikko
>
> I don't know the point of abstract mathematics, and maybe you're right.
> But my point is that in some cases they are both unnecessary and wrong.
> Consider the case of the theory of special relativity. What does Doctor
> Hachel say who, like Poincaré, has the fault of being French?
> He says that his abstractions are useless because we do things faster
> and better with simple school-level calculations.

Simple scool level calculations are abstract mathematics.

--
Mikko

Mikko wrote:

> On 2024-02-22 14:08:59 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

>> Le 22/02/2024 à 10:30, Mikko a écrit :
>>>
>>> Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
>>> inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
>>> physical meaning.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>
>> I don't know the point of abstract mathematics, and maybe you're right.
>> But my point is that in some cases they are both unnecessary and wrong.
>> Consider the case of the theory of special relativity. What does Doctor
>> Hachel say who, like Poincaré, has the fault of being French?
>> He says that his abstractions are useless because we do things faster
>> and better with simple school-level calculations.

> Simple scool level calculations are abstract mathematics.

And speaking of abstract mathematics - it's always
good to remind that your bunch of idiots had to
announce its oldest, very important and successful
part false, as it didn't want to fit the madness
of your insane guru.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 22/02/2024 à 13:37, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
> écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> We must describe the Langevin as I do it
>>
>> No, we must understand, first of all, that
>> *** THERE IS NO PARADOX *** in the Langevin gedanken.

> To judge what a man (here me) says, you must first understand this man.
> If we give a man who does not know music theory the score of Mozart's
> 21st, he will only see signs written on paper, and will understand nothing
> of the beauty of the work.
> If I give you the explanations of Langevin's traveler, it is clear that
> you will not be able to appreciate the beauty of the concepts.
> For this, you would have to study and understand what I am saying.
> There is in Langevin's traveler a paradox that is irresolvable without
> going through Hachel. Physicists, not knowing what to do with it, divert
> the problem by proposing a very welcome gap time at the time of the
> U-turn.

Changes in the traveling twin's motion do not affect the
stay-at-home twin at all. They only change what instants
in the stay-at-home twin's timeline that the traveling twin
considers to be simultaneous to his own.

There is nothing mysterious about this. You mistakenly believe
that you have some sort of heightened insight into a basic
consequence of the relativity of simultaneity.

You do not.

> This is obviously not very serious, friends, and it's sweeping
> dust under the rug. I don't practice such things, and yet, at home, Stella
> is 18 years old like at yours, and 30 is definitely 30.
> In a logical scientific universe, we had to ask ourselves: but how does he
> do it?
> Or: Sir, sit with us for a few moments and explain yourself.
> I say "in a logical scientific universe.

> R.H.

Le 22/02/2024 à 18:05, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :
> Changes in the traveling twin's motion do not affect the
> stay-at-home twin at all. They only change what instants
> in the stay-at-home twin's timeline that the traveling twin
> considers to be simultaneous to his own.
>
> There is nothing mysterious about this. You mistakenly believe
> that you have some sort of heightened insight into a basic
> consequence of the relativity of simultaneity.
>
> You do not.

Inhale, blow...

Gently...

I repeat: Inhale...blow gently...

It is obvious, I hope that you are not going to want to make me say what I
did not say, that what happens there does not influence what happens on
earth, nor the proper chronology. earthly.

For 40 years, I have been trying to do serious relativistic science, with
serious models.

As for what happens at the moment of the U-turn for the space traveler,
and for his twin who observes him through the telescope,
I would even say, which will shock my reader (but stuck as he is either in
Newtonism or in Minkowskianism), that almost nothing happens at all.

For Terrence, he sees (this is an example) his sister turn in 40 hours on
a large semi-circle and at a tangential speed of 0.8c, while she ages by
24 hours of proper time.

For Stella, she spends 24 hours of her own time, while she sees her
brother age 40 hours. Nothing very natural, basically. He is (for her)
three years old when she turns, he is always three years old at the end of
his turn.

Everything else happens during the Galilean relative phases.

The universal equation is valid for both (there is no preferred reference
frame): Tapp=Tr.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Perfectly reciprocal effect:
"...and the effects of physics, even apparent, are reciprocal by
permutation of frame of reference"
R.Hachel. Kyoti Conference 2023

Breathe, breathe...

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 22/02/2024 à 18:05, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
> écrit :
>> Changes in the traveling twin's motion do not affect the
>> stay-at-home twin at all. They only change what instants
>> in the stay-at-home twin's timeline that the traveling twin
>> considers to be simultaneous to his own.
>>
>> There is nothing mysterious about this. You mistakenly believe
>> that you have some sort of heightened insight into a basic
>> consequence of the relativity of simultaneity.
>>
>> You do not.

> Inhale, blow...

> Gently...

> I repeat: Inhale...blow gently...

> It is obvious, I hope that you are not going to want to make me say what I
> did not say, that what happens there does not influence what happens on
> earth, nor the proper chronology. earthly.

> For 40 years, I have been trying to do serious relativistic science, with
> serious models.

> As for what happens at the moment of the U-turn for the space traveler,
> and for his twin who observes him through the telescope,
> I would even say, which will shock my reader (but stuck as he is either in
> Newtonism or in Minkowskianism), that almost nothing happens at all.

Correct. Nothing happens at all.

> For Terrence, he sees (this is an example) his sister turn in 40 hours on
> a large semi-circle

Huh? The usual statement of the twin paradox holds that
Stella flies straight out, turns, and then flies straight
back. Even if it takes her 24 hours by her clock to
accomplish the turnaround, there is no semi-circle for
Terrence to observe.

> and at a tangential speed of 0.8c, while she ages by
> 24 hours of proper time.

She changes from a radial speed of 0.8c outwards to a
radial speed of 0.8c inwards over a 24 hour period by
her clock.

What's all this "tangential speed" stuff?

Be very, very careful here. What Terrence and Stella "see" is
quite different from what they would "measure" after properly
compensating for speed of light effects.

What they each "see" is that light from their twin changes
from pronounced redshift to pronounced blueshift, and
their twin's apparent motions changes from super slow due to
relativistic Doppler effect to super fast.

I presume from the numbers that you have presented that
the star system is 4 ly away for a total trip time, by
Terrence's clock, of 10 years. Measured by Stella's clock,
the total trip time would be 6 years.

> For Stella, she spends 24 hours of her own time, while she sees her
> brother age 40 hours. Nothing very natural, basically. He is (for her)
> three years old when she turns, he is always three years old at the end of
> his turn.

You are confusing "seeing" with "measurement". When Stella reaches
the destination star, the light entering her telescope is from
4 years previous. On her way back, she catches up with all of the
"missing" light.

> Everything else happens during the Galilean relative phases.

You have spent years being totally confused.

> The universal equation is valid for both (there is no preferred reference
> frame): Tapp=Tr.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

> Perfectly reciprocal effect:
> "...and the effects of physics, even apparent, are reciprocal by
> permutation of frame of reference"
> R.Hachel. Kyoti Conference 2023

> Breathe, breathe...

> R.H.

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2024-02-21 19:31:31 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
> > Le 21/02/2024 à 19:15, Mikko a écrit :
> >>
> >> You seem to mean that the theory is very poorly explained. Which is
> >> true to some extent. Some books explein it better than some other
> >> books.
> >
> > Yes, it's true.
> >
> > I noticed this about forty years ago.
> >
> > Certainly, there are things that are not too badly said, sometimes, but
> > most of the time it is very poorly explained, and we clearly see that
> > the author of the article, the site, or the book does not understand
> > clearly what he says and uses abstract mathematics to explain things he
> > doesn't understand.
>
> Abstaract mathematics has one important advantage: the correctness of the
> inferences and conclusion can be verified without understanding its
> physical meaning.

What do you mean, 'physical meaning'?,

Jan

Le 22/02/2024 à 22:16, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:

>> For 40 years, I have been trying to do serious relativistic science, with
>> serious models.
>
>> As for what happens at the moment of the U-turn for the space traveler,
>> and for his twin who observes him through the telescope,
>> I would even say, which will shock my reader (but stuck as he is either in
>> Newtonism or in Minkowskianism), that almost nothing happens at all.
>
> Correct. Nothing happens at all.

Yééééééééééééééééééééé!

Champagne, les mecs!

R.H.