Le 28/03/2024 à 12:06, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 27/03/2024 à 23:03, Python a écrit :
>> Le 27/03/2024 à 18:07, Volney a écrit :
>>> On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>> Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>>>> Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>>> You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
>>>> ≈ 78 million times per second.
>>>> The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D
>>>>
>>>> But maybe you were joking.
>>>> In that case you had me!
>>>>
>>> It appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
>>> "rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
>>> related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
>>> rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
>>> simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
>>> dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein
>>> velocity addition formula.
>>
>> It is not even that, it is worse, far worse.
>
> Je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ton intervention.
> J'attends toujours tes excuses pour ton comportement stupide sur le
> description du voyageur de Langevin en vitesses apparentes, et pourquoi
> la formule Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) ne fonctionne que pour l'aller et pas
> pour le retour.

I won't apologize for having stated a basic geometric fact. The
formula applied for both *but* not for the *whole* trajectory for
the return trip :

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

I won't apologize either for having pointing out, as many others, that
your claim for the accelerating traveler in your Tau Ceti scenario
is directly violating the principle of relativity.

It is not my fault if you, M.D Lengrand, are stubborn, dishonest and
stupid.

Den 27.03.2024 14:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 27/03/2024 à 13:24, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>> Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>> Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claim that the speed of an object in an inertial frame
>>>>>> may be several times the speed of light, but will always be
>>>>>> measured to be less than c.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not just that I claim it, it's that it's logical, coherent,
>>>>> mathematical.

Right.
Newtonian Mechanics is logical and mathematical coherent.
And falsified.

>>>>>
>>>>> Already forty years ago, I gave the five basic equations (hundreds
>>>>> will follow) of SR
The "Hachel theory" has nothing to do with SR.
The speed of the object is what Newtonian Mechanics predicts.
And then you claim that the measured speed will always be
the speed divided by sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) where Vr is the speed.

So your theory is:
"It is impossible to measure time and speed".

A genial theory! :-D

>>>>>
>>>>> To²=Tr²+Et²
>>>>> To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
>>>>> Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>>>>> Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
>>>>> Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>>>>
>>>> In the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] at Cern the measured speed
>>>> of the protons is Vo = 0.9999999896⋅c
>>>>
>>>> The circumference of the LHC and the time to go around
>>>> the circuit are precisely known.
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
>>>>   Vr = 6927⋅c ?
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> That's what I said.
>>
>> Since it is you, Doctor Richard Hachel, i will assume you are serious.
>> (Nobody but you could seriously make such a ridiculous claim.)
>>
>> You are obviously ignorant of how a synchrotron works.

You are obviously still ignorant.
You never read what you are told.

>>
>> The protons in the LHC are moving around a ring with
>> circumference 26659 m. The ring consist of straight
>> stretches and bends. In the straight stretches there
>> are eight RF-cavities which accelerate the protons.
>> In the bends there are magnets which make the path of
>> the protons bent. The protons will radiate some of their
>> kinetic energy as synchrotron radiation (light with a special
>> spectrum) in the bends, and when the synchrotron is in steady
>> state at peak power, the energy gained in the RF-cavities will
>> be lost in the bends.
>>
>> In a RF-cavity there is an electric field which is changing
>> direction sinusoidally all the time. The protons are moving in
>> bunches, and a bunch must be at a RF-cavity exactly at the time
>> when the electric field is at peak value in the right direction.
>> Since there are many (N) bunches in the ring, and each bunch are
>> going around the ring many times (M) per second, the frequency
>> of the RF-field in the RF-cavity must be a multiple of N x M Hz.
>> The nominal frequency is 400.8 MHz, but this is finely tuned
>> depending on the speed of the protons.
>>
>> The point is that the speed of the protons is very precisely known,
>> and the measured and real speed of the protons is the same.
>>
>> You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
>> ≈ 78 million times per second.
>> The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
>>
>> Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D
>>
>> But maybe you were joking.
>> In that case you had me!

So you were not joking!

I have a hard time believing that it is possible
to be so ignorant about the real world as you have to
be to claim what you do.

But now you have convinced me!

>
> CERN physicists are doing their job.
> We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed (useful
> but false).
> So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
> I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
> They tell me no.
> I tell them that to be consistent you have to measure things with a
> single watch, and that measuring the departure of the proton and the
> arrival of the proton with two different watches (in this case, the lab
> watch that counts the revolutions is TWO watches) can only lead to
> measuring speeds incredibly lower than reality.

If you had read what I told you, you would have known
that the speed of the protons is measured with one clock,
namely the frequency of the RF-field in the RF-cavites.
The protons are accelerated by this field, and if the field
isn't at peak value in the right direction when the proton
is in a cavity, the Accelerator wouldn't work. So the time
between each time a proton is in a certain cavity is known
with extreme precision, and the circumference of the ring
is obviously precisely known.

So you see, the speed is close to c, but will never exceed c.

To believe that a proton in an accelerator move thousands
of times faster than the speed of light is beyond ignorance.

Any sane person who know what a proton is, must understand
that you can't make a proton go around a 27 km long ring if
you do not know _exactly_ how protons behave in electric and
magnetic fields.

No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
_exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.

> Only the proton itself has the correct watch, because it, in its frame
> of reference, accelerated or not, is invariant.
> Now, if we want to know the real speed of the proton, we must know its
> momentum in an instant of its journey.
> Physicists will necessarily find p=m.Vr, and not p=m.Vo.

Physicists measure the momentum to be m⋅v⋅γ
and the energy to be m⋅c²⋅γ
where v is the speed and γ = 1/√(1−v²/c²).

Exactly as predicted by SR.

Sorry Richard. Your "theory" is utter nonsense.

But you better stay in Wonderland where you are free
to make up how protons and other objects behave.
Learning something about the real world and realizing
that what you have believed for 40 years is nonsense
would probably kill you.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

W dniu 28.03.2024 o 14:58, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

> Sorry Richard. Your "theory" is utter nonsense.
>
> But you better stay in Wonderland where you are free
> to make up how protons and other objects behave.
> Learning something about the real world and realizing
> that what you have believed for 40 years is nonsense
> would probably kill you.

Sorry, Paul, the same applies to you and The
Shit of your idiot guru. And in the meantime
in the real world, forbidden by idiots like you
"improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like
all the serious clocks always did.

Le 28/03/2024 à 12:58, Python a écrit :

> I won't apologize

> I won't apologize

Je sais.

R.H.

Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> If you had read what I told you, you would have known
> that the speed of the protons is measured with one clock,
> namely the frequency of the RF-field in the RF-cavites.
> The protons are accelerated by this field, and if the field
> isn't at peak value in the right direction when the proton
> is in a cavity, the Accelerator wouldn't work. So the time
> between each time a proton is in a certain cavity is known
> with extreme precision, and the circumference of the ring
> is obviously precisely known.
>
> So you see, the speed is close to c, but will never exceed c.
>
> To believe that a proton in an accelerator move thousands
> of times faster than the speed of light is beyond ignorance.
>
> Any sane person who know what a proton is, must understand
> that you can't make a proton go around a 27 km long ring if
> you do not know _exactly_ how protons behave in electric and
> magnetic fields.
>
> No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
> _exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.

Where did I say the opposite of that?

R.H.

Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> Physicists measure the momentum to be m⋅v⋅γ
> and the energy to be m⋅c²⋅γ
> where v is the speed and γ = 1/√(1−v²/c²).
>
> Exactly as predicted by SR.

You think I don't know that? ? ?

Paul, I beg you to be a little more serious.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>> Physicists measure the momentum to be m⋅v⋅γ and the energy to be m⋅c²⋅γ
>> where v is the speed and γ = 1/√(1−v²/c²).
>> Exactly as predicted by SR.
>
> You think I don't know that? ? ? Paul, I beg you to be a little more
> serious.

completely nonsense. The gamma there is already an SR. Recap "relativity". Your ass is in jeopardy. Gay macron, send more money to ukrein.

𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁_𝗥𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿:_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲_𝗮_𝗙𝗔𝗧𝗔𝗟_𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘
𝗮𝘀_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗪𝗮𝗿_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/video/QMjyPBLrnx40

i am wondering how that gay wanker of bill gaytes still walking alive in amrica, and not judged and executed for the severe crimes done on humanity with lies and vaccines.

𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀_𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗗𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿_𝗕𝗲𝘁_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗼_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗱𝗲_𝗔𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱
https://th%65%70%65%6f%70%6c%65%73%76%6fice.tv/bill-gates-makes-multi-million-dollar-bet-that-turbo-cancers-will-explode-around-the-world/
March 28, 2024 Baxter Dmitry 1
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested millions of dollars in a French biotech company working to rebuild the immune systems of cancer patients, as the global elite continue making major moves in the […]

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗗𝗿._𝗥𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿_𝗙𝘂𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗵_-_22_03_2024
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/video/Wuru2ByPDzvU

Le 28/03/2024 à 17:06, Londell Kreskas Grammatakakis a écrit :

> Gay macron

Off-Topic here.

R.H.

On 3/28/2024 7:02 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 27/03/2024 à 17:07, Volney a écrit :
>> On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
>> It appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
>> "rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
>> related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
>> rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
>> simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
>> dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein
>> velocity addition formula.
>
> Your answer is very interesting, I will just modify it slightly.
> You say that for Doctor Hachel the notion of real speed is not a speed.
> Of course yes, and it's even the only consistent speed.
> This is the usual notion of observable speed Vo which is NOT a speed but
> a simple decoy.

You have this backwards. The velocity v is real but the rapidity r is
not a speed/velocity but instead is a function of speed, specifically
r=arctanh(v/c).

At low speeds (v<<c), arctanh(v/c) ~= v/c which is why adding (low)
speeds "works" even though doing so technically calculates a rapidity.

> You are talking about additions of observable (measurable) speeds, the
> formula is here:

The observable/measurable speed v is the real speed. Its range is simply
-c < v < c. Rapidity can take on any real value, the rapidity of light
moving at c is infinite.
>
> I remind you that physicists who say that real speeds are of no interest
> are wrong.

The real speed v is of extreme interest, of course. Rapidity, as far as
I know, is little used except as a simplifier as it has gamma 'built
in'. Perhaps someone more familiar with it can provide details.

On 3/27/24 12:07 PM, Volney wrote:
> Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
> related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity.

Yes. It is the hyperbolic angle of rotation in a space-time plane due to
relative velocity v (Minkowski geometry). Just like \theta is typically
the angle of rotation in a space-space plane (Euclidean geometry).

Tom Roberts

Le 28/03/2024 à 20:54, Volney a écrit :
> On 3/28/2024 7:02 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Rapidity can take on any real value, the rapidity of light
> moving at c is infinite.

This is absolutely obvious.

For 40 years, I have thought at length about all these problems of special
relativity, because I am naturally curious, and I find it stupid to learn
notions by heart without understanding them, or without being sure that
they are correct.

When we understand things correctly, after 40 years of reflection, we
realize that it is always very difficult to teach what we have understood,
because of two things: the enormous a priori (that is to say stupidity and
human ignorance), and intellectual violence (i.e. arrogance in front of a
man who understands things better, and who explains them differently).

It is then very very difficult to speak and explain, especially when it
seems "a little crazy".

Let's take accelerated frames of reference, and return to the problem
studied by Paul B. Andersen. Is the observable speed of a mobile invariant
in a frame of reference? We will find the question absolutely absurd.
However, what is true in a Galilean frame of reference is no longer true
in an accelerated frame of reference, and this is very strange when one is
not prepared to understand it.
It seems absurd, and I myself didn't believe it for a long time, saying to
myself: "It's absurd, I'm wrong." Speed cannot change depending on
position.

However, my calculations were correct, the traditional observable speed Vo
VARIES depending on the position in certain frames of reference.

This is precisely because these speeds are not real, but illusions.

If I study, for example, the traveler of Tau Ceti in accelerated mode,
and in real speed there is no problem, the real speed remains perfectly
consistent.

But not the observable speed, and that is NORMAL since it is only an
illusion due to measurements made by watches located in different places.

Let's ask Paul, who is one of the best posters on usenet, and ask him what
the observable speed of a rocket crossing Tau Ceti located at 12 ly will
be.

a=1.052 (10m/s²)

It will say 0.997c.

This is false Vo=0.980c

We can calculate it directly with:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?JpQ45DGZXSvcO3qB1xXWEJE5_U4@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

Le 28/03/2024 à 23:19, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> On 3/27/24 12:07 PM, Volney wrote:
>> Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
>> related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity.
>
> Yes. It is the hyperbolic angle of rotation in a space-time plane due to
> relative velocity v (Minkowski geometry). Just like \theta is typically
> the angle of rotation in a space-space plane (Euclidean geometry).
>
> Tom Roberts

No.

LOL.

"Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed" : c'est l'inverse qui est
vrai.

Observable speed is a relativistic lure, only rapidity is the real speed.

p is not p=m.Vo

p is p=m.Vr

Vo is a lure.

"La vitesse de la lumière est le premier des leurres relativistes ; ce
cheval dans ce pré,
cette lune dans ce ciel, cette galaxie dans ce télescope, je les vois
instantanément,
l'émission étant simultanée de l'absorption, en direct-live.
Croire le contraire, c'est porter crédit au fait que l'on peu mesurer
des instants avec des montres désynchronisées de nature".
Dr Richard Hachel.

This explains the instantaneous transfers of information in correlated
photon experiments.
Exactly the same thing happens between our retina and the star, the body,
or the animal that we observe in perfect simultaneity.

R.H.

Si on ne comprend pas cela, on court à la catastrophe conceptuelle.

R.H.

Den 28.03.2024 16:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>> No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
>> _exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.
>
> Where did I say the opposite of that?
>
> R.H.

Doctor Richard Hachel, I beg you to be a little more serious.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 29/03/2024 à 13:13, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 28.03.2024 16:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>> No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
>>> _exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.
>>
>> Where did I say the opposite of that?
>>
>> R.H.
>
> Doctor Richard Hachel, I beg you to be a little more serious.

Oh, I'm always very serious.
The big problem is that "the others", in general, are not.
Sometimes out of stupidity, more often out of interest.
I'm not just talking about relativistic science, I'm also talking about
all human behavior in general.
As soon as a small interest is at stake, human beings are incapable of
remaining fair and consistent.
It is a law of nature like the law of gravitation.
Your problem, Paul B. Andersen, is that you don't understand what I'm
saying. We must then ask ourselves the question: “But what is
happening?”.
Richard speaks and Paul does not understand. For what?
Two solutions are immediately considered by those who read,
according to their scientific ideological orientation.
1. Paul doesn't understand Richard, because Doctor Hachel is a moron.
2. Paul doesn't understand Richard, because Paul is a moron.
It is obvious, for anyone with a minimum of intelligence and knowledge of
the forums, both propositions are absurd.
The question remains the same: “But then? What’s going on?”

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 28/03/2024 à 23:19, Tom Roberts a écrit :
>> On 3/27/24 12:07 PM, Volney wrote:
>>> Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is related to speed
>>> by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity.
>>
>> Yes. It is the hyperbolic angle of rotation in a space-time plane due
>> to relative velocity v (Minkowski geometry). Just like \theta is
>> typically the angle of rotation in a space-space plane (Euclidean
>> geometry). Tom Roberts
>
> No. LOL. "Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed"

bullshit both. The rapidity is 𝙖_𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙮 of going very fast, potentially
unseen to infinity. (ie ima/de_materializing). Fuck you america. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙫𝙞𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨, 𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙨 (Matthew 23).

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗠𝗮𝘆_𝗨𝘀𝗲_𝗙-16𝘀_𝗮𝘀_𝗞𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗸𝗮𝘇𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗥𝗲𝘃_𝗨𝗽_𝗥𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗕𝘂𝘁_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗛𝗮𝘀_𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240328/ukraine-may-use-f-16s-as-kamikazes-to-rev-up-rockets-but-russia-has-means-to-counter-threat-1117614782.html

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/

𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗧𝘂𝗯𝗲_𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝘀_𝗜𝘁_𝗛𝗮𝘀_‘𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹_𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆’_𝗧𝗼_𝗥𝗶𝗴_𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻
March 29, 2024 Sean Adl-Tabatabai 0
YouTube had declared that it has a “moral responsibility” to tweak its
algorithm in order to help the Democrats defeat Trump in the 2024
election. According to YouTube’s chief product officer, Johanna Voolich,
YouTube is […]

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮_𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗡𝗼𝘄_𝗪𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻_𝗧𝗵𝗲_‘𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴’_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸_𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀
March 28, 2024 Baxter Dmitry 0
Donald Trump’s new media company ended the day valued at more than $8
billion after its first day trading on the NASDAQ, meaning it is worth
more than established legacy media companies including the New […]

𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲_𝗔𝘀_𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗿_𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_5_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗚𝗼_𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗜𝗻_𝗪𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻’𝘀_𝗧𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
March 28, 2024 Niamh Harris 0
An Australian soccer team has sparked outrage on social media after its
club with several transgender players dominated a women’s preseason
tournament. The Flying Bats Women’s Football Club, which includes five
biological males, won every […]

𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿:_𝗞𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗠𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗼𝗻’𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿_𝗜𝘀_𝗣𝘀𝘆-
𝗢𝗽_𝗧𝗼_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲_𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗼_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿_𝗗𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁
March 28, 2024 Baxter Dmitry 1
The Princess of Wales’ Kate Middleton’s cancer announcement is one small
but important part of a vast and all-consuming psy-op designed to
manipulate the masses, according to a World Economic Forum insider who has
revealed […]

On 2024-03-29 12:49:18 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 29/03/2024 à 13:13, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 28.03.2024 16:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
>>>> _exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.
>>>
>>> Where did I say the opposite of that?
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>
>> Doctor Richard Hachel, I beg you to be a little more serious.

> Your problem, Paul B. Andersen, is that you don't understand what I'm saying.

No, that is not his problem but yours. Nobody needs to understand you.
You want to be understood. But that not going to happen unless uou
find out how you can make yourself understood.

--
Mikko

Le 29/03/2024 à 13:26, Mikko a écrit :
> No, that is not his problem but yours. Nobody needs to understand you.
> You want to be understood. But that not going to happen unless uou
> find out how you can make yourself understood.

“Whoever wants to teach new things must do so with great caution.”

Nietszche dit la même chose : "On n'aime pas trop les nouvelles tables".

I remind you that the problem comes neither from me nor from the reader.

There are no morons in my house or in theirs.

Additionally, I only use equations that are easily understandable for
average 16 or 17 year old students.

Sines, cosines, square roots and nothing more.

This is sufficient to propose a space-time geometry, based on Poincaré's
equations, but simpler and truer than that of Minkowski, and which has no
paradox or contradiction.

The question is “but what happens then?”

The answer is infinitely simple and understandable for a seven-year-old
child: "We don't want Doctor Hachel to rule over us, he overshadows us."

It's stupid.

BUT it is nevertheless true.

R.H.

Le 29/03/2024 à 14:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 29/03/2024 à 13:26, Mikko a écrit :
>> No, that is not his problem but yours. Nobody needs to understand you.
>> You want to be understood. But that not going to happen unless uou
>> find out how you can make yourself understood.
>
> “Whoever wants to teach new things must do so with great caution.”
>
> Nietszche dit la même chose : "On n'aime pas trop les nouvelles tables".
>
> I remind you that the problem comes neither from me nor from the reader.
>
> There are no morons in my house or in theirs.
>
> Additionally, I only use equations that are easily understandable for
> average 16 or 17 year old students.
>
> Sines, cosines, square roots and nothing more.
>
> This is sufficient to propose a space-time geometry, based on Poincaré's
> equations, but simpler and truer than that of Minkowski, and which has
> no paradox or contradiction.
>
> The question is “but what happens then?”
>
> The answer is infinitely simple and understandable for a seven-year-old
> child: "We don't want Doctor Hachel to rule over us, he overshadows us."
>
> It's stupid.
>
> BUT it is nevertheless true.
>
> R.H.

https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/delusion_of_grandeur

On 2024-03-29 13:39:59 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> The answer is infinitely simple and understandable for a seven-year-old
> child: "We don't want Doctor Hachel to rule over us, he overshadows us."

That's right. A teacher should illuminate, not keep in dark.

--
Mikko

Den 29.03.2024 13:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 29/03/2024 à 13:13, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 28.03.2024 16:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
>>>> _exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.
>>>
>>> Where did I say the opposite of that?

The "opposite" you claim not to have said is:
"Accelerators would work even if charged particles didn't
behave as predicted by SR."

>>
>> Doctor Richard Hachel, I beg you to be a little more serious.

>
> Oh, I'm always very serious.

Since you, Doctor Richard Hachel, claim that charged particles
do not behave as predicted by SR, and you _know_ that accelerators
work, you can't seriously claim that you haven't said:
"Accelerators do work even if charged particles don't behave
as predicted by SR."

> The big problem is that "the others", in general, are not.
> Sometimes out of stupidity, more often out of interest.
> I'm not just talking about relativistic science, I'm also talking about
> all human behavior in general.
> As soon as a small interest is at stake, human beings are incapable of
> remaining fair and consistent.
> It is a law of nature like the law of gravitation.
> Your problem, Paul B. Andersen, is that you don't understand what I'm
> saying. We must then ask ourselves the question: “But what is happening?”.
> Richard speaks and Paul does not understand. For what?

Richard, are you trying to divert the attention from the issue
of this thread? I have proven your "relativistic science" wrong.
So why don't you address the issue in stead of this irrelevant
babble?

> Two solutions are immediately considered by those who read,
> according to their scientific ideological orientation.
> 1. Paul doesn't understand Richard, because Doctor Hachel is a moron.
> 2. Paul doesn't understand Richard, because Paul is a moron.

3. Paul does understand what Richard says because Richard expresses
himself very clearly with words that can't be misunderstood:

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
|>> Vr = 6927⋅c ?
|>
|> Absolutely.
|>
|> That's what I said.

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
|>> ≈ 78 million times per second.
|>> The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
|>
|> CERN physicists are doing their job.
|> We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
|> So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
|> I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,

So Paul does understand that Doctor Richard Hachel claims that
protons behave very differently from what SR predicts.

Since accelerators do work, the fact that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR,
proves that Doctor Richard Hachel's claim is wrong.

Nothing more to discuss.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 3/28/2024 7:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 27/03/2024 à 23:03, Python a écrit :
>> Le 27/03/2024 à 18:07, Volney a écrit :
>>> On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>> Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>>>> Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>>> You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
>>>> ≈ 78 million times per second.
>>>> The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D
>>>>
>>>> But maybe you were joking.
>>>> In that case you had me!
>>>>
>>> It appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
>>> "rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
>>> related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
>>> rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
>>> simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
>>> dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein
>>> velocity addition formula.
>>
>> It is not even that, it is worse, far worse.
>
> Je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ton intervention.
> J'attends toujours tes excuses pour ton comportement stupide sur le
> description du voyageur de Langevin en vitesses apparentes, et pourquoi
> la formule Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) ne fonctionne que pour l'aller et pas
> pour le retour.
> R.H.
>
Why are you asking us 'Have you ever wondered why you can't taste your
tongue?'

Volney wrote:

> On 3/28/2024 7:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > Je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ton intervention.
> > J'attends toujours tes excuses pour ton comportement stupide sur le
> > description du voyageur de Langevin en vitesses apparentes, et pourquoi
> > la formule Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) ne fonctionne que pour l'aller et pas
> > pour le retour.
> > R.H.
>
> Why are you asking us 'Have you ever wondered why you can't taste your
> tongue?'

:-))

Volney wrote:

> On 3/28/2024 7:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ton intervention.
>> J'attends toujours tes excuses pour ton comportement stupide sur le
>> description du voyageur de Langevin en vitesses apparentes, et pourquoi
>> la formule Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) ne fonctionne que pour l'aller et pas
>> pour le retour. R.H.
>>
> Why are you asking us 'Have you ever wondered why you can't taste your
> tongue?'

i am wondering what happened with mitch raemesh, he was a big physicist.

Darris Rikhter Bajinov pretended :
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/2024 7:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ton intervention.
>>> J'attends toujours tes excuses pour ton comportement stupide sur le
>>> description du voyageur de Langevin en vitesses apparentes, et pourquoi
>>> la formule Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) ne fonctionne que pour l'aller et pas
>>> pour le retour. R.H.
>>>
>> Why are you asking us 'Have you ever wondered why you can't taste your
>> tongue?'
>
> i am wondering what happened with mitch raemesh, he was a big physicist.

I hope he is learning to rhyme.