Le 24/02/2024 à 16:38, Python a écrit :

>>> He sets t(A')-t(A)=2AB/c

> Richard is claiming that, considering
> that light speed is infinite).

C'est ce que je dis.

Ligth speed is infinite.

Electromagnetic transactions are instantaneous.

R.H.

Volney wrote:

> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
>> demonstrate it.
>
> No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
> one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
> (inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
> often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.

Mockba. You don't undrestand what "𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁" stands for in Einstine. Common
error. The relativists think it stays for something else. It's
"𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁", not "constant". Here some proofs:

🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺

send more weapons to ukrein. And money to 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆. They get the weapons,
the 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 takes the money.

this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆" page 08:24
lol

𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗟_𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_&_𝗠𝗰𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻_-_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲¸𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS

very funny indeed.

On 2/24/2024 1:58 PM, Lénárt Szakács Keresztes wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
>>> demonstrate it.
>>
>> No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
>> one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
>> (inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
>> often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
>
> Mockba. You don't undrestand what "𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁" stands for in Einstine. Common
> error. The relativists think it stays for something else. It's
> "𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁", not "constant". Here some proofs:
>
> 🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
>
> send more weapons to ukrein. And money to 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆. They get the weapons,
> the 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 takes the money.
>
> this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆" page 08:24
> lol
>
> 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗟_𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_&_𝗠𝗰𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻_-_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲¸𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽
> https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS
>
> very funny indeed.

Cute you are, aren't you Hanson.

You think you can con yourself as a Russian? Hehe :)They why your ass
smell toasted when I tell Russians "West" isn't worth shit?

Fucking imbecile.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 02/23/2024 01:52 PM, JanPB wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
> quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
> selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
> depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
>
>> Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
>> understand anything at all?
>
> I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard
> and simple.
> You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a
> while.
> What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really
> works.
> Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are
> valid methods
> of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
>
> --
> Jan

Depending on the relative motion of the A and B in their spacial,
they may have either accelerated what it results that the given
image emitted as light at any point, is in transit in the "open space",
not so necessarily symmetrical with respect to the simpler case
of bodies with constant relative motion.

Over time, ....

Einstein defines "spacial" (not, "spatial") in "Out of My Later Years",
which these days is "SR is local" (and, "Relativity of Simultaneity
is not-necessarily-local"), and space-contraction is part of his
next mass/energy equivalency relation for "Einstein's bridge".

https youtube @rossfinlayson

Le 24/02/2024 à 23:36, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> On 02/23/2024 01:52 PM, JanPB wrote:
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
>> quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
>> selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
>> depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
>>
>>> Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
>>> understand anything at all?
>>
>> I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard
>> and simple.
>> You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a
>> while.
>> What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really
>> works.
>> Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are
>> valid methods
>> of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
>
> Depending on the relative motion of the A and B

In the context at stake here, i.e. part I.1 of A.E. paper,
clocks at A and B are in mutual rest.

> [snip rest of dementia]

You need medical help Ross, your posts make less and less
sense.

Physfitfreak wrote:

>> this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆" page
>> 08:24 lol 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗟_𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_&_𝗠𝗰𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻_-_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲¸𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽
>> https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS very funny indeed.
>
> Cute you are, aren't you Hanson.

here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽, and my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀" Model 𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲. Where 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 is
exactly the mater 𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 super_positioned, the Einstine
knew nothing about. His relativity equations are kindergarten
approximations based on correlation.

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲_–_𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 lol, they are waking up
The US dollar 𝗶𝘀_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 and its fall will drag down the rest of the
world, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele has declared
https://r%74.com/news/593090-nayib-bukele-dollar-collapse/

𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛:_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁_𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝘃𝗱𝗲𝗲𝘃𝗸𝗮 lol
Starlink terminals used to operate Ukrainian drones were also found, the
Defense Ministry has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593074-abandoned-nato-arms-avdeevka/

western weapons are gay. Leopard2 my ass.

𝗗𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗨𝗡_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗵_𝘁𝗼_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_–_𝗨𝗦_𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿
Republican congressman Matt Gaetz has called for requiring budget cuts to
offset assistance to any overseas ally
https://r%74.com/news/593085-defund-un-to-pay-for-israel-aid-gaetz-says/

Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:

> Physfitfreak wrote:

> here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even spell Einstein correctly?

Am 24.02.2024 um 14:06 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 24/02/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
>> Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
>> the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
>> the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
>> in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
>>
>> In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
>> B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an
>> observer
>> halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
>> can be equidistant from those points.
>
> Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
> say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
> special relativity (or at least, it should not).

Points are actually timeless (in euclidean space), because 'point'
denotes a location. And locations do not move (by definition of 'location').

But you apparently mean 'local time' (or 'A-time' at point A).

Here SRT influences and changes local time in remote locations, hence
A-time and B-time are not in synch per se.

Now it's getting tricky to synchronize clocks in A and B, because not
only the time values (and dates) must be sent to the remote place, but
also the length of the second.

The time and date values from, say, A can be sent to B, if A reduces the
timme encoded into the signal by the expected delay.

Or it could be synched by B, if B adds the delay value to the encoded
time value in the timing signal.

Now we get a similar clock at the remote position, say B, which is in
synch with the remote time (A-time), but not with the local time (B-time).

It is actually not possible to bring that clock (showing A-time at place
B) in synch with B-time, if the second in B is e.g. twice as long as in A.

> However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.
>
> Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.

No.

Events have only a single time value and no duration, hence can be
synchronized, if the delay is taken into consideration.

To do this, the delay should be measured (by cutting the time for a
round-trip in half) and added to the timing information.

This is equivalent to a hypothetical timing signal with infinite velocity.

To use light instead would require to compensate the delay for the
transit of the light signal. That can be done with a measurement of the
delay (and not so without knowing the delay).
....

W dniu 24.02.2024 o 14:52, Mikko pisze:

> In Special Relativity it is possible to define a reasonable
> meaning for simultaneity at different points.

Nope, The Shit's definition of simultaneity
is completely idiotic and practically unusable.

Le 25/02/2024 à 07:45, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 24.02.2024 um 14:06 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> Le 24/02/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
>>> Not a signifiacnt disadvantage. But an important question is whether
>>> the syncronicity of A and B and the syncronicity of B and C imply
>>> the syncronicity of A and C. Einstein does not say much about that
>>> in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but elsewhere says "yes".
>>>
>>> In Special Relativity any observer who is equidistant from clocks A and
>>> B can determine the synchronization of A and B the same wah as an
>>> observer
>>> halfway between. For almost every for points A, B, C, and D an observer
>>> can be equidistant from those points.
>>
>> Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
>> say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
>> special relativity (or at least, it should not).
>
> Points are actually timeless (in euclidean space), because 'point'
> denotes a location. And locations do not move (by definition of 'location').
>
> But you apparently mean 'local time' (or 'A-time' at point A).
>
> Here SRT influences and changes local time in remote locations, hence
> A-time and B-time are not in synch per se.
>
> Now it's getting tricky to synchronize clocks in A and B, because not
> only the time values (and dates) must be sent to the remote place, but
> also the length of the second.
>
> The time and date values from, say, A can be sent to B, if A reduces the
> timme encoded into the signal by the expected delay.
>
> Or it could be synched by B, if B adds the delay value to the encoded
> time value in the timing signal.
>
> Now we get a similar clock at the remote position, say B, which is in
> synch with the remote time (A-time), but not with the local time (B-time).
>
> It is actually not possible to bring that clock (showing A-time at place
> B) in synch with B-time, if the second in B is e.g. twice as long as in A.
>
>> However, Einstein seems to think so, which surprises me a lot.
>>
>> Two events can only be simultaneous for a given point.
>
>
> No.
>
> Events have only a single time value and no duration, hence can be
> synchronized, if the delay is taken into consideration.
>
> To do this, the delay should be measured (by cutting the time for a
> round-trip in half) and added to the timing information.
>
> This is equivalent to a hypothetical timing signal with infinite velocity.
>
> To use light instead would require to compensate the delay for the
> transit of the light signal. That can be done with a measurement of the
> delay (and not so without knowing the delay).
> ...

It seems that you don't quite understand what I'm saying, and it's very
annoying for me, for forty years having to repeat things that are very
simple but that no one WANTS to understand.
The behavior being more human than scientific. “We do not WANT this man
to rule over us.”
I repeat these simple things again:
The notion of time, that is to say instant in Hashelian language, is
relative to POSITION in defined space. We can therefore NEVER "absolutely"
synchronize two watches placed in different places, we can only do it FOR
a third watch placed equidistant from two others, and BETWEEN these two
others. This third watch (observer) can then say. Events A and B occurred
simultaneously, FOR ME, and they were simultaneous for all the other
watches in the universe placed on the bisector M of AB.
But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
We can synchronize A on B, or B on A (FOR A), but the reciprocal will then
no longer be true. B will look at things with even more astonishment and
say: "It's worse, the gap is now double what it was before).
You talk about time passing faster in A than in B, but I never talked
about that. It goes without saying that time is perfectly isochronotropic.
A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same inertial frame of
reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at the same speed as the
others; and the opposite would be absurd.
It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.

In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the position;
chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.

It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their
eyes.

We prefer to spit on Doctor Hachel, it's funnier, and we pass ourselves
off as great scientific geniuses.

It's sad and pathetic.

The world is crazy.

“This world stinks.”
Rav H. Dynovisz

R.H.

palsing wrote:

> Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
>> here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
>
> How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
> spell Einstein correctly?

just ignore that, fucking stoopid. It's fucking insignificant, his name.
The Einstine was sleeping in bed with his own family. A disgrace. He was
in math, physics and mental capability, which is important. Read the
context, not the names, idiot.

🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽, and my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀" Model 𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲. Where
𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 is exactly the mater 𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
super_positioned, the Einstine knew nothing about. His relativity
equations are kindergarten approximations based on correlation.
🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗮𝗶𝗱_‘𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀_𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸’_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗦_–_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆 lol
The money that Washington allocates for Kiev supports jobs in America, the
high-ranking State Department official has said
https://r%74.com/news/593111-nuland-us-aid-ukraine/

the 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮 gay actor, acts again:

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱_‘𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆_𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻’_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗻𝗼_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀_–_𝗭𝗮𝗹𝘂𝘇𝗵𝗻𝘆_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿
Civilian officials did not tell the army how many soldiers and weapons it
would receive, Viktor Nazarov has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593122-kiev-victory-plan-resource-shortage/

fucking stupid, braindead stupid:

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃
Berlin will now abandon the established rendering of the city in its
official documents
https://r%74.com/news/593093-germany-rename-kiev-official-spelling/
The city previously known in German as ‘Kiew’ will now be written as
‘Kyjiw’, the ministry said in a series of statements on X (formerly
Twitter)

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
Kiev’s forces reportedly withdrew from the village of Lastochkino to
safeguard their supply lines and conserve manpower
https://r%74.com/russia/593113-ukraine-another-retreat-donbass/

Every day I wake up to another instance of Russia being "strategically
defeated."

"save personnel.”, best excuse of the year at its only February 🤣
After all they killed last year, nd now they are worried about their
soldiers lives.

Zelinski is now aware that his soldiers are been decimated by the stupid
military decisions he imposed on zalushny. He can't count on new recruits
so he is now asking for defensive weapons to protect his soldiers from new
Russian offensives.

The retreat of nazified Ukrainian troops will soon devolve into an all out
track meet to the Polish border.

Ukrainan arm forces retreat to take "better offensive position".
everything they do is offensive.

Joe Biden’s report to US Congress; elensky lost, retreat because Cuba
refusing to send Soviet weapons to elensky.

The terrorist gang nazi NATO training did not help...Neither did the NATO
weapons. lol. They are about to suck own dick.

the criminal Joe Biden will say it’s China’s fault.

No money no war. I guess those soldiers didn't get paid as Washington
doesn't wanna pay for its war in Ukraine. lol. In 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 you work
for free. They get the money. You give your blood. It's fucking written in
their papers, go there and read it, what 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 is.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 24.02.2024 um 14:06 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
>> say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
>> special relativity (or at least, it should not).
>
> Points are actually timeless (in euclidean space), because 'point'
> denotes a location. And locations do not move (by definition of
> 'location').

inconclusive, 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼_𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲 domain points without passage of time makes no
sense. Hence space without time is 100% bullshit. They like 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆,
a gay 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 actor, as the entire 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 is a cinema. A
cartoon to fool the public. Behind it it's nothing. Read this papers and
write a conclusion in your papers. This is how science works.

2024_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗢𝗱𝘆𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘂𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀._𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/IRJv77O6cWkN

𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴_𝗥𝗲𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗣𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘀_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/odq1tFQfoRc5

𝗜_𝗯𝗲𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆_𝗶𝗻_𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼_𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/DTaMCoKNnPpy

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗔_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄_𝘂𝗽._𝗜_𝗵𝗮𝗱_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/KMJxEbrZ2uTi

𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗦!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/naxHReirDhXq

𝗜𝘁𝘀_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝘄𝗲'𝘃𝗲_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_50_𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/d5IznWwVk6nF

𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮_𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗱
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/pIHz5hwEkFxO

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw

𝗜_𝗕𝗘𝗧_𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬_𝗗𝗢𝗡'𝗧_𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛_𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦_𝗜𝗡_𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗟!
𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙-𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗜𝘁_𝗜𝘀_𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧_𝗦𝗘𝗘_(2018-2019)
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/FJxc8TFqUCdJ

On 2/24/2024 9:51 PM, palsing wrote:
> Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
>
>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
>
> How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
> spell Einstein correctly?

That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.

Volney wrote:

> On 2/24/2024 9:51 PM, palsing wrote:
>> Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
>>
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>> here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
>>
>> How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
>> spell Einstein correctly?
>
> That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.

that's what capitalism is. Expect your 𝙛𝙖𝙠𝙚_𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙮 shithole country to fall.
It's a sin, written in 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. The 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝙛𝙖𝙠𝙚_𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙮 is a sin.

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱_𝗸𝗲𝘆_𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝘁𝗼𝗽_𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_–_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿
Civilian officials did not tell the army how many soldiers and weapons it
would receive, Viktor Nazarov has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593122-kiev-victory-plan-resource-shortage/

‘𝗦𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮_𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗯𝗲_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿’:
Why Alexey Balabanov is one of the most prominent film directors in modern
Russia His works have already become modern classics, but still spark
controversy in modern Russia
https://r%74.com/pop-culture/593114-alexey-balabanov-sixty-five/

Den 25.02.2024 16:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
> I repeat these simple things again:
> The notion of time, that is to say instant in Hashelian language, is
> relative to POSITION in defined space. We can therefore NEVER
> "absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places, we can
> only do it FOR a third watch placed equidistant from two others, and
> BETWEEN these two others. This third watch (observer) can then say.
> Events A and B occurred simultaneously, FOR ME, and they were
> simultaneous for all the other watches in the universe placed on the
> bisector M of AB.
> But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
> We can synchronize A on B, or B on A (FOR A), but the reciprocal will
> then no longer be true. B will look at things with even more
> astonishment and say: "It's worse, the gap is now double what it was
> before).
> You talk about time passing faster in A than in B, but I never talked
> about that. It goes without saying that time is perfectly
> isochronotropic. A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same
> inertial frame of reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at
> the same speed as the others; and the opposite would be absurd.
> It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.
>
> In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the position;
> chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.
>
> It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
> simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their eyes.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.
But I will present an example of synchronism from the real world.

Given two clocks on the geoid at the equator.
Both clocks are showing UTC.
The clocks are 10 km apart as measured in the ground frame.

All physicists will agree on the following:

In the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (aka ECI-frame),
where the clocks are moving easwards with the speed 465.1 m/s,
the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition of
simultaneity.
But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock.

Do you agree with the physicists?
If not, please explain what's wrong.

Please be concrete.
The GPS woulnd't work if the SV clocks weren't synchronous with UTC,
so Einstein's definition of simultaneity seems to work in the real
world.

Do you agree?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Volney wrote:

> On 2/24/2024 9:51 PM, palsing wrote:
>> Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
>>
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>> here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
>>
>> How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
>> spell Einstein correctly?
>
> That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.

two colors flags should not even exists. Countries flagging two colors are
occupied capitalist shithole provinces, not countries. The 𝐤𝐡𝐚𝐳𝐚𝐫_𝐠𝐨𝐲𝐬 stole
these provinces, proved by occupied governments, which are not
governments, but the so called "𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀", where peace is
antisemitic. Thought, the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 are not Semites, but Turkish gypsies.
They beg for money and everything.

𝗨𝗦_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮_𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗲𝘁_𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
A Salon op-ed has blamed Washington and its allies for standing in the way
of settlement talks with Russia
https://r%74.com/news/593152-salon-oped-calls-for-ukraine-peace-talks/

but the Putin is a fuckin traitor, sending nazis in paid vacation in
Turkey. Instead of Siberia, at work. Then the Putina chose a neutral
country to run the "peace talks". What 𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗻𝗲𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 is Turkey?? The turks
are gypsy arabs.

On 2/25/2024 11:10 AM, Maria Komáromi Forgács wrote:
> 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
> https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw

Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something
happens up there and they would have to improvise.

You're an idiot, Hanson. And you idiots savor and find each other too.
Problem is, you're too stupid to see how others look at you idiots.

I hope at least you're getting paid by my tax money, you _pest_. And
it's of course all clear what else you do with your time. Getting it in
the ass.

If you had decency, you'd hang yourself, Hanson. Decent individuals of
your creed jump down high story buildings.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Physfitfreak wrote:

>> 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
>> https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw
>
> Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something
> happens up there and they would have to improvise

LOL, this old fuck. Those publisher are different, cretin. What your
𝘁𝗮𝘅_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆?? When they print 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 at will, for centuries now, why the
fuck they need your money, you braindead imbecile? That's the idea, lol.

𝗜𝗳_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝗖𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗢𝘂𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗗𝗼_𝗪𝗲_𝗣𝗮𝘆_𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/6ExEBQiESvNI

𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗳𝘁!
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/QJnBzJtEBkDi

𝗨𝗦_𝗗𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮_𝗹𝗼𝗹
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/2HpJQv3Ru7Mz

𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗮_𝗩𝘆𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗿𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝘄𝗮𝘀_𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗔𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗼-𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/jO5OSLeGZJfz

𝗜𝘁'𝘀_𝗢𝗞_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆_-_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗱_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝘀𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗸𝗶𝗱𝘀.
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/QHkNtLQ9yazR

𝗔𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗼_𝗬𝘂𝗴𝗼𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗮_𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘂𝗽_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲_𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗕𝗼𝘀𝗻𝗶𝗮_𝘄𝗮𝗿
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/aBzpRQphlavF

then recap the proofs

2024_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗢𝗱𝘆𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘂𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀._𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/IRJv77O6cWkN

𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴_𝗥𝗲𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗣𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘀_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/odq1tFQfoRc5

𝗜_𝗯𝗲𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆_𝗶𝗻_𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼_𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/DTaMCoKNnPpy

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗔_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄_𝘂𝗽._𝗜_𝗵𝗮𝗱_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/KMJxEbrZ2uTi

𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗦!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/naxHReirDhXq

𝗜𝘁𝘀_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝘄𝗲'𝘃𝗲_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_50_𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/d5IznWwVk6nF

𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮_𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗱
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/pIHz5hwEkFxO

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw

𝗜_𝗕𝗘𝗧_𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬_𝗗𝗢𝗡'𝗧_𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛_𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦_𝗜𝗡_𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗟!
𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙-𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗜𝘁_𝗜𝘀_𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧_𝗦𝗘𝗘_(2018-2019)
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/FJxc8TFqUCdJ

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 2/25/2024 11:10 AM, Maria Komáromi Forgács wrote:
> > 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
> > https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw
>
> Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something
> happens up there and they would have to improvise.
>
> You're an idiot, Hanson. And you idiots savor and find each other too.
> Problem is, you're too stupid to see how others look at you idiots.
>
> I hope at least you're getting paid by my tax money, you _pest_. And
> it's of course all clear what else you do with your time. Getting it in
> the ass.
>
> If you had decency, you'd hang yourself, Hanson. Decent individuals of
> your creed jump down high story buildings.

I never heard of "jump down" in physics. (or any place else for that
matter)

....
don't
you
have
to
jump...
UP first???

i mean, jumping requires
a force that pushes...upwards.

i don't even understand the words..."down high"!

Is math your third language?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Am 25.02.2024 um 21:36 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 25.02.2024 16:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>
>> I repeat these simple things again:
>> The notion of time, that is to say instant in Hashelian language, is
>> relative to POSITION in defined space. We can therefore NEVER
>> "absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places, we
>> can only do it FOR a third watch placed equidistant from two others,
>> and BETWEEN these two others. This third watch (observer) can then
>> say. Events A and B occurred simultaneously, FOR ME, and they were
>> simultaneous for all the other watches in the universe placed on the
>> bisector M of AB.
>> But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.
>> We can synchronize A on B, or B on A (FOR A), but the reciprocal will
>> then no longer be true. B will look at things with even more
>> astonishment and say: "It's worse, the gap is now double what it was
>> before).
>> You talk about time passing faster in A than in B, but I never talked
>> about that. It goes without saying that time is perfectly
>> isochronotropic. A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same
>> inertial frame of reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at
>> the same speed as the others; and the opposite would be absurd.
>> It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.
>>
>> In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the
>> position; chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.
>>
>> It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
>> simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their
>> eyes.
>
> I don't understand what you are trying to say.
> But I will present an example of synchronism from the real world.

I would actually support the idea of local time, too (which was a
proposal from Henry Poincaré).

the reason to think so:

time is based on the counting of certain events, like day and night or
the vibrations of a quartz.

But why should all days be equal and why, if the plantes are not equal,
upon which the day is based?

For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence.

But no such thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local
and clocks depend on the local environment and count something there.

Then other environments have other days and other seconds.

Even the direction of time does not need to be the same, because worlds
are thinkable, where time runs backwards (from our perspective).

> Given two clocks on the geoid at the equator.
> Both clocks are showing UTC.
> The clocks are 10 km apart as measured in the ground frame.
>
> All physicists will agree on the following:
>
> In the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (aka ECI-frame),
> where the clocks are moving easwards with the speed 465.1 m/s,
> the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition of
> simultaneity.

This is not true, because the frame of reference can be chosen in SRT,
hence the velocity v is also arbitrary.

You mean actually, that a point on the equator rotates with that angular
velocity, if we would regard the solar system as stationary.

But we know with certainty, that the solar system isn't, since it
rotates around the centre of our home galaxy, which also moves around in
the local cluster.

Since the latter movements are far faster than the rotation of the
Earth' equator, we could actually ignore that rotation and concentrate
on the movement of the local cluster.

> But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
> eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock.

I do not understand this sentence:

what is an 'eastern clock' and why should it lack behind a 'western clock'?
....

TH

Den 26.02.2024 07:30, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 25.02.2024 um 21:36 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>
>> Given two clocks on the geoid at the equator.
>> Both clocks are showing UTC.
>> The clocks are 10 km apart as measured in the ground frame.
>>
>> All physicists will agree on the following:
>>
>> In the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (aka ECI-frame),
>> where the clocks are moving eastwards with the speed 465.1 m/s,
>> the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition of
>> simultaneity.

>
> This is not true, because the frame of reference can be chosen in SRT,
> hence the velocity v is also arbitrary.
>
> You mean actually, that a point on the equator rotates with that angular
> velocity, if we would regard the solar system as stationary.
>
> But we know with certainty, that the solar system isn't, since it
> rotates around the centre of our home galaxy, which also moves around in
> the local cluster.
>
> Since the latter movements are far faster than the rotation of the
> Earth' equator, we could actually ignore that rotation and concentrate
> on the movement of the local cluster.

A bit confused, Thomas? :-D

>
>> But in the ground frame, where the clocks are stationary, will the
>> eastern clock always lag ≈ 0.051 ns behind the western clock.

>
>
> I do not understand this sentence:
>
> what is an 'eastern clock' and why should it lack behind a 'western clock'?
> ...
>
>
> TH

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

W dniu 25.02.2024 o 21:36, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

> The GPS woulnd't work if the SV clocks weren't synchronous with UTC,
> so Einstein's definition of simultaneity seems to work in the real
> world.

What an impudent lie; of course -
The GPS woulnd't work if the SV clocks weren't synchronous with [GPS
time, learn some subject, GPS time is different than UTC]
so Einstein's definition of simultaneity is useless in the real
world.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
> clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
> thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and
> clocks depend on the local environment and count something there.

actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in relativity
you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny indeed. As for
instance

𝗖𝗜𝗔_𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁_𝗵𝘂𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝘆_𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗡𝗬𝗧
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/eRQk2S3Ro0KP

and lol

𝗔𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_(𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗦𝗧_𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢)_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
The Russian military has knocked out one of the US-supplied tanks serving
with Kiev’s army, footage circulating online suggests
https://r%74.com/russia/593197-abrams-tank-ukraine/

only took a day since the first was finally spotted moving towards the
front to take one out..

The ukies probably thought they were on some "wonder weapon" until they
started seeing it burn like a piece of paper

In case you missed it, the Houthi rebels were pretty happy destroying
Abrams Tanks and nullifying Patriot Systems on a daily basis, for years...
Until the swindled Saudis finally gave up on all these US 'WonderWeapons'
SCAMS. LoL.

𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸_𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/NKxUy7Pep61l

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲’𝘀_𝗔𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀_𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗻_𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀_–_𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻
The first US-supplied Ukrainian M1 Abrams has been destroyed the conflict
https://r%74.com/russia/593218-ukraine-abrams-tanks-peskov/

𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗰𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲
Protecting the region from Kiev’s attacks was one of the key reasons for
the Ukraine conflict, according to Moscow
https://r%74.com/russia/593166-putin-zelensky-donbass-ceasefire/

Zelensky works for the CIA, not Ukraine. Fact

You don't need 20 years to pull back troops. Zelensky was clearly already
taking coke and lying in 2019. Very right Mr. Putin did not trust him.

We know who wanted the War. Just remember Covid stopped on the 24th Feb
2022 and we all know why.

I don't get it. It seems Zelensky is admitting that Ukraine provoked
Russia into this conflict.

Am 26.02.2024 um 21:57 schrieb Piotr Babchenko Bakulev:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
>> clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
>> thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and
>> clocks depend on the local environment and count something there.
>
> actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in relativity
> you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny indeed. As for
> instance
>

Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.

But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.

And you cannot define things in a circular fashion.

Here you need time first and then can say something about entropy, but
cannot use entropy to define time, anymore.

I would say, that time is local and a function of the local environment,
which dictates, what local observers could see and take as time.

So: the local environment is a place in the universe, where local
observers are stable entities and see the local universe, which they can
measure with local means.

But if you would go somewhere else (like to Alpha Centaury), you would
see a different universe, because the local environment there uses a
different time.

TH

On 2/25/2024 10:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> It seems that you don't quite understand what I'm saying, and it's very
> annoying for me, for forty years having to repeat things that are very
> simple but that no one WANTS to understand.

Maybe it's because we understand you are wrong.

> But between A and B, there will NEVER be absolute simultaneity.

Because time is not Galilean.

> It goes without saying that time is perfectly
> isochronotropic.

Is that kind of like saying time is perfectly green? Or time is
perfectly cold?

> A watch in A, in B, in C, in Y, and Z, in the same
> inertial frame of reference, will always beat, this is a tautology, at
> the same speed as the others; and the opposite would be absurd.
> It is only by change of reference that chronotropy varies.
>
> In short, time, that is to say the moment, is RELATIVE to the position;
> chronotropy, i.e. duration, is RELATIVE to speed.

Is that chronotropy the temperature of the time or the greenness of the
time?
>
> It is childishly simple, but sad to cry because this beauty, this
> simplicity, is refused by men for the simple fact that it hurts their eyes.
>
> We prefer to spit on Doctor Hachel,

Why would you claim (by using 'we') that you spit on yourself? Or is
this 'Dr. Hachel' (used in the third person) someone who is not you, but
you (included in 'we') spit on him?