Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am Freitag000005, 05.04.2024 um 09:50 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 01.03.2024 um 07:25 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
> >>>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
> >>>>
> >>>>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
> >>>>> the second.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
> >>>>> certain atoms.
> >>>>
> >>>>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
> >>>>> underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
> >>>>
> >>>>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
> >>>>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
> >>>>
> >>>>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
> >>>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
> >>>>
> >>>> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
> >>>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
> >>>
> >>> https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
> >>>
> >>> These are, poor halfbrain.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> All of these do not show time!
> >>
> >> Dates belong to time values, too, because time is not only counting the
> >> hours, minutes and seconds within a single day.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> > does time flow? how do you 'detect' the flow??
> >
> > oh, oh, i'm running out of time! does time run?
> >
> > if arrow of time, where is the bow?
>
> The human perception of time isn't time neither.
>
> You must not take your own impresions as something real!
>
> Everything you think as reality is actually an internal representation
> of the outer world, which is generated by your brain.
>
> Therefore: what you think is not real, but an internal image about the
> real world.
>
> But natural sciences like physics are not about our usual daydreams, but
> about the real world, hence you should refrain from talking about
> feelings or emotions in connection with physics.
>
> Feelings are a subject of science, too, but not of physics.
>
> TH

sci.physics????

sci.
..physics??

What does sci.physics mean???? a subject of science but not of physics???

i'm soooo confused...

sometimes like a wave, sometimes like a particle

science but not physics. no

sometimes science, sometimes physics.

i'm soooo confused...

small particles, big particles

sci physics?

do i got dat right?

arrow of time
dis way and dat way.
sci physics

do i got dat right?

i'm soooo confused...

sci.math

is just... a feeling
that numbers exist.

do i got dat right?

dark matter and dark energy?
is it sci or physics?

i'm soooo confused...

i don't seem to know...anything!

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

Am Dienstag000016, 16.04.2024 um 18:19 schrieb The Starmaker:

>
>
> i'm soooo confused...
>
>
>
> sci.math
>
> is just... a feeling
> that numbers exist.
>
>
> do i got dat right?
>
>
>
> dark matter and dark energy?
> is it sci or physics?
>
>
> i'm soooo confused...
>

Well, medicine or psychology are sciences, too.

Possibly you ask one of these branches for help.

TH
>

Am Samstag000024, 24.02.2024 um 23:54 schrieb Python:
> 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.

Actually Einstein didn't say so, but didn't mention relative velocity
neither.

So, let's assume, that A and B are points in space and mutually at rest
towards each other.

So A and B are points at rest in respect to each other. Because point a
is assumed to be at rest, too, the point B is also at rest.

Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.

This is actually ok.

But why then didn't Einstein calculate the delay of the light signals
for the transit from A to B and back?

It should technically easy to send a signal from A to B, get it
reflected there and measure the dealy, cut that in half and add this
one-way delay to the time value imbedded in the time-coded signal, which
A receives from B.

This would eliminate the influence of the speed of light and would allow
mutally equal synchronization between clocks at A and B.

But this was not, what Einstein had done.

Instead he had the strange idea, that the time value seen on the rmeote
clock would be the time at the remote location.

But this is actually not true, because also the delay caused by the
finite speed of light had to be compensated.

TH

>> [snip rest of dementia]
>
> You need medical help Ross, your posts make less and less
> sense.
>
>
>
>
>

Le 26/04/2024 à 09:11, Thomas Heger a écrit :
....
>> In the context at stake here, i.e. part I.1 of A.E. paper,
>> clocks at A and B are in mutual rest.
>
>
> Actually Einstein didn't say so, but didn't mention relative velocity
> neither.

He said so quite clearly:

"Let us take a system of co-ordinates ..." => a SINGLE system

"If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-
ordinates ..." all "points" mentioned later are at relatively
to this system, this obviously implies that they are mutually
at rest.

> So, let's assume, that A and B are points in space and mutually at rest
> towards each other.
>
>
> So A and B are points at rest in respect to each other. Because point a
> is assumed to be at rest, too, the point B is also at rest.
>
> Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
> mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
>
> This is actually ok.

Good to hear. Why did it take you YEARS to understand this Thomas ?

> But why then didn't Einstein calculate the delay of the light signals
> for the transit from A to B  and back?
>
> It should technically easy to send a signal from A to B, get it
> reflected there and measure the dealy, cut that in half and add this
> one-way delay to the time value imbedded in the time-coded signal, which
> A receives from B.
>
> This would eliminate the influence of the speed of light and would allow
> mutally equal synchronization between clocks at A and B.
>
> But this was not, what Einstein had done.
>
> Instead he had the strange idea, that the time value seen on the rmeote
> clock would be the time at the remote location.

Absolutely NOT, there is nothing of that kind in Einstein paper !

from t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

and (2AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c

[i.e. t'A - t_A = (2AB)/c ! What is (2AB)/c if not - obviously -
such a delay (twice the delay actually) you stupidly complain that
it wouldn't have been taken into account ???]

From these two simple equations you can deduce immediately :

t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c

i.e. time shown on clock A when receiving a signal sent by clock B when
clock B was showing t_B is t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c

(AB)/c is the delay : the time taken by light to travel from B to A.

If you cannot spot this at first read it means that your are not a
member of the expected audience of this article i.e. non-morons.

Which makes your attempt to "evaluate" it as a teacher quite pathetic.

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 09:11, Thomas Heger pisze:

> Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
> mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
>
> This is actually ok.

It's not. Theadness of physics didn't start
with Giant Guru.

Le 26/04/2024 à 12:31, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 09:11, Thomas Heger pisze:
>
>> Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
>> mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
>>
>> This is actually ok.
>
> It's not. Theadness of physics

What the hell does "theadness" mean?

> didn't start with Giant Guru.

Your inferiority complex is showing Wozmaniak...

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 09:11, Thomas Heger pisze:
>
>> Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
>> mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
>>
>> This is actually ok.
>
> It's not. Theadness of physics didn't start with Giant Guru.

absolutely, excellent observation

<input type="image" name="image" src="
CFNpZlQ5xxWYG5EncgRTf5W14locQi3qM+haKQleNQ4CMGmYopQrr9OYOeP4NBm5tN52hDnIb1LjyxuPeKQ+hwKkeQviOhaXeSqu8RdYB9/
HmP8BtiJufnj/BupjSRAFFGwKZ8UIrLaq/GOeodTdkBA2HhZLkw/
Ct7RC0+wLcb9VgWY+15EVmOTJKPkM9UcjOb8VzxTj9wYuopozxRxPRvu7wX+B04I/
XqH4J9RwHHnlF9Bb2H5qSB5vNkSEAsAZJdTg59s0gFAcymjS+lDAse9QUaedS7V7dSj3TD4TRs0BYwpZiB6Rjw38QwGbAsuDMZ4N+gFx5u4S14yR8mu6039GXERvNTtsFYQGdOcuDNDKFZFQL2cD2C//
FURCa755dA7Q0ZMCusoG2IHRWm5dL8pAkKTAOm/
d6UCp6XwBsmvdZqWrbyfcC5S2AZU9NHw5FBUE12vAlYFsPyCGrLvv0A2K8haTiIUXn0CCdQ1QCiVex8GSC35KwIEdyhlgnbA+OlUOrwqMmu0tYb0AHvsVWqgLUohkhkJyle7pTH49A2UFOOHPx+yIVbDfdZdN9FdBEmneqV88QBKtzyGWQ6CCHnD4iTsQFrxy5/
TedSQ4ifz6ghJTKc0WAv8WwoFvdFEgrNNUkNgs9IE0VcHupvJu8V6mCSThospTR6jkuM9n2SD8BfxMrYG/
iGfDAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC" alt="image input"/>

Le 26/04/2024 à 12:27, Python a écrit :
> Le 26/04/2024 à 09:11, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> ...
>>> In the context at stake here, i.e. part I.1 of A.E. paper,
>>> clocks at A and B are in mutual rest.
>>
>>
>> Actually Einstein didn't say so, but didn't mention relative velocity
>> neither.
>
> He said so quite clearly:
>
> "Let us take a system of co-ordinates ..." => a SINGLE system
>
> "If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-
> ordinates ..." all "points" mentioned later are at relatively
> to this system, this obviously implies that they are mutually
> at rest.
>
>> So, let's assume, that A and B are points in space and mutually at rest
>> towards each other.
>>
>>
>> So A and B are points at rest in respect to each other. Because point a
>> is assumed to be at rest, too, the point B is also at rest.
>>
>> Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
>> mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
>>
>> This is actually ok.
>
> Good to hear. Why did it take you YEARS to understand this Thomas ?
>
>> But why then didn't Einstein calculate the delay of the light signals
>> for the transit from A to B  and back?
>>
>> It should technically easy to send a signal from A to B, get it
>> reflected there and measure the dealy, cut that in half and add this
>> one-way delay to the time value imbedded in the time-coded signal, which
>> A receives from B.
>>
>> This would eliminate the influence of the speed of light and would allow
>> mutally equal synchronization between clocks at A and B.
>>
>> But this was not, what Einstein had done.
>>
>> Instead he had the strange idea, that the time value seen on the rmeote
>> clock would be the time at the remote location.
>
> Absolutely NOT, there is nothing of that kind in Einstein paper !
>
> from t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>
> and (2AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>
> [i.e. t'A - t_A = (2AB)/c ! What is (2AB)/c if not - obviously -
> such a delay (twice the delay actually) you stupidly complain that
> it wouldn't have been taken into account ? ? ?]
>
> From these two simple equations you can deduce immediately :
>
> t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c
>
> i.e. time shown on clock A when receiving a signal sent by clock B when
> clock B was showing t_B is t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c
>
> (AB)/c is the delay : the time taken by light to travel from B to A.
>
> If you cannot spot this at first read it means that your are not a
> member of the expected audience of this article i.e. non-morons.
>
> Which makes your attempt to "evaluate" it as a teacher quite pathetic.

Je crois qu'il confond le docteur Hachel et le docteur Einstein.

La notion d'anisochronie spatiale, c'est Hachel.

Einstein et Hachel posent (2AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c

Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
ce qui d'ailleurs ne veut rien dire (à la limite c'est vrai pour tous les
points situé du le plan médiateur (oh un néologisme), mais à
l'exclusion de tous les autres points de l'univers.

R.H.

On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A

A denial is not a refutation.

--
Mikko

Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
>
>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>
> A denial is not a refutation.

Definitely. Moreover this equation is basically a convention that
allows to set up a set of co-moving clocks. To "refute" a convention
you'd have to show it is inconsistent.

It can be shown that this convention IS consistent (i.e. reflexive,
symmetric, transitive). Richard "Hachel" Lengrand's rant is pointless.

Moreover this convention preserves Newton's laws between inertial
frames, while Hachel's various idiotic claims are violating the
principle of Relativity and are contradictory.

W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
> Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
>> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
>>
>>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>>
>> A denial is not a refutation.
>
> Definitely.

Neither insults are, poor trash, and The
Shit of your idiot guru has been proven
inconsistent.

Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
>> Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
>>> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
>>>
>>>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>>>
>>> A denial is not a refutation.
>>
>> Definitely.
>
> Neither insults are

> poor trash

> The Shit

> idiot guru

Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>
> A denial is not a refutation.

A genial denial is a refutation.

Je vous rappelle que j'ai réfuté l'explication du paradoxe de Langevin
pour la première fois dans l'histoire de l'humanité, et que personne n'a
jamais expliqué les choses mieux que moi.

Ici, j'explique le problème de l'anisochronie spatiale (constante par
changement de référentiel).

Hier j'expliquais l'égalité de deux temps propre entre un objet
accéléré et un objet en mouvement
galiléen si le temps impropre était égal, pour peu que l'objet
accéléré parte au repos, et je disais que si le temps impropre variait
(ce qui est évident) les temps propres restaient invariants entre eux
(tautologie). Je faisais remarquer qu'alors, si l'on se plaçait dans le
référentiel galiléen d'un objet,
on avait forcément toujours le même temps impropre pour les deux. Or, le
temps impropre d'un référentiel
pour ce référentiel, c'est son propre temps propre (tautologie encore).
Si les temps impropres sont égaux,
alors les temps propres le sont aussi pour lui. Donc il le sont pour tous,
un temps propre ne pouvant avoir qu'une seule mesure (sinon c'est
absurde).

On me dit que je fais du déni, que je suis extravagant, que je suis fou,
que je suis mythomane, que je suis arrogant.

Même les choses les plus claires et les plus évidentes passent pour des
mensonges ou des hallucinations.

Il y a donc, dans le cas Hachel, un immense problème psychiatrique.

Mais ce que mes correspondants ne parviennent pas à comprendre, c'est
qu'il ne vient pas de moi.

R.H.

Le 27/04/2024 à 13:28, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
>> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>
>>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>>
>> A denial is not a refutation.
>
> A genial denial is a refutation.

Even a genius can be wrong, nevertheless you're not a genius:
quite the opposite actually.

> Je vous rappelle que j'ai réfuté l'explication du paradoxe de Langevin pour la
> première fois dans l'histoire de l'humanité, et que personne n'a jamais
> expliqué les choses mieux que moi.

This is a stupid delusion.

> Ici, j'explique le problème de l'anisochronie spatiale (constante par
> changement de référentiel).
>
> Hier j'expliquais l'égalité de deux temps propre entre un objet accéléré et
> un objet en mouvement
> galiléen

This is wrong.

> si le temps impropre était égal,

This is an irrelevant tautology.

> pour peu que l'objet accéléré parte au repos, et je disais que si le temps
> impropre variait (ce qui est évident)

Between frames, sure. Irrelevant again.

> les temps propres restaient invariants entre eux (tautologie).

Silly. So from a = a you deduce a = b. You're not going well these
days, are you?

> Je faisais remarquer qu'alors, si l'on se plaçait dans le référentiel
> galiléen d'un objet,
> on avait forcément toujours le même temps impropre pour les deux. Or, le temps
> impropre d'un référentiel
> pour ce référentiel, c'est son propre temps propre (tautologie encore).

It is not the proper time of the other traveler.

> Si les temps impropres sont égaux,
> alors les temps propres le sont aussi pour lui. Donc il le sont pour tous, un
> temps propre ne pouvant avoir qu'une seule mesure (sinon c'est absurde).

There is not a single valid logical connection in your paragraph. There
is absolutely no reason for respective proper times to be equal
(except in Galilean Relativity of course).

> On me dit que je fais du déni, que je suis extravagant, que je suis fou, que je
> suis mythomane, que je suis arrogant.

You are.

> Même les choses les plus claires et les plus évidentes passent pour des
> mensonges ou des hallucinations.
>
> Il y a donc, dans le cas Hachel, un immense problème psychiatrique.

Definitely: you are a fool.

Le 26/04/2024 à 19:43, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 26/04/2024 à 12:27, Python a écrit :
>> Le 26/04/2024 à 09:11, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[...]
>>> This would eliminate the influence of the speed of light and would allow
>>> mutally equal synchronization between clocks at A and B.
>>>
>>> But this was not, what Einstein had done.
>>>
>>> Instead he had the strange idea, that the time value seen on the rmeote
>>> clock would be the time at the remote location.
>>
>> Absolutely NOT, there is nothing of that kind in Einstein paper !
>>
>> from t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>>
>> and (2AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>>
>> [i.e. t'A - t_A = (2AB)/c ! What is (2AB)/c if not - obviously -
>> such a delay (twice the delay actually) you stupidly complain that
>> it wouldn't have been taken into account ? ? ?]
>>
>> From these two simple equations you can deduce immediately :
>>
>> t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c
>>
>> i.e. time shown on clock A when receiving a signal sent by clock B when
>> clock B was showing t_B is t'_A = t_B + (AB)/c
>>
>> (AB)/c is the delay : the time taken by light to travel from B to A.
>>
>> If you cannot spot this at first read it means that your are not a
>> member of the expected audience of this article i.e. non-morons.
>>
>> Which makes your attempt to "evaluate" it as a teacher quite pathetic.
>
> Je crois qu'il confond le docteur Hachel et le docteur Einstein.
>
> La notion d'anisochronie spatiale, c'est Hachel.
>
> Einstein et Hachel posent (2AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>
> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
> ce qui d'ailleurs ne veut rien dire (à la limite c'est vrai pour tous les
> points situé du le plan médiateur (oh un néologisme), mais à l'exclusion de
> tous les autres points de l'univers.

Back in 2007 you wrote in a post on fr.sci.physique (*) that Einstein
did not care at all about clocks synchronization in his 1905 paper.

Then I showed you that he did in part I.1. quite explicitly by the way.

When presented the equation t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A your reaction was that
this equation meant that both clocks tick at the same rate. Which is
utterly
ridiculous.

There is no reason to think that you understand such basic stuff better
now than
then, quite the opposite actually.

(*)
https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

On 2024-04-27 11:40:13 +0000, Python said:

> Le 27/04/2024 à 13:28, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
>>> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>>
>>>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>>>
>>> A denial is not a refutation.
>>
>> A genial denial is a refutation.

Apparently he doesn't realize that "genial" is a false friend. It
doesn't mean the same in English as "génial" in French. (Setting aside
the point that "Dr" Hachel is at the same level of genius as Donald J.
Trump.)
>
> Even a genius can be wrong, nevertheless you're not a genius: quite the
> opposite actually.
>
>> Je vous rappelle que j'ai réfuté l'explication du paradoxe de Langevin
>> pour la première fois dans l'histoire de l'humanité, et que personne
>> n'a jamais expliqué les choses mieux que moi.
>
> This is a stupid delusion.
>
>> Ici, j'explique le problème de l'anisochronie spatiale (constante par
>> changement de référentiel).
>>
>> Hier j'expliquais l'égalité de deux temps propre entre un objet
>> accéléré et un objet en mouvement
>> galiléen
>
> This is wrong.
>
>> si le temps impropre était égal,
>
> This is an irrelevant tautology.
>
>> pour peu que l'objet accéléré parte au repos, et je disais que si le
>> temps impropre variait (ce qui est évident)
>
> Between frames, sure. Irrelevant again.
>
>> les temps propres restaient invariants entre eux (tautologie).
>
> Silly. So from a = a you deduce a = b. You're not going well these
> days, are you?
>
>> Je faisais remarquer qu'alors, si l'on se plaçait dans le référentiel
>> galiléen d'un objet,
>> on avait forcément toujours le même temps impropre pour les deux. Or,
>> le temps impropre d'un référentiel pour ce référentiel, c'est son
>> propre temps propre (tautologie encore).
>
> It is not the proper time of the other traveler.
>
>> Si les temps impropres sont égaux,
>> alors les temps propres le sont aussi pour lui. Donc il le sont pour
>> tous, un temps propre ne pouvant avoir qu'une seule mesure (sinon c'est
>> absurde).
>
> There is not a single valid logical connection in your paragraph. There
> is absolutely no reason for respective proper times to be equal
> (except in Galilean Relativity of course).
>
>> On me dit que je fais du déni, que je suis extravagant, que je suis
>> fou, que je suis mythomane, que je suis arrogant.
>
> You are.
>
>> Même les choses les plus claires et les plus évidentes passent pour des
>> mensonges ou des hallucinations.
>>
>> Il y a donc, dans le cas Hachel, un immense problème psychiatrique.
>
> Definitely: you are a fool.

Do the psychiatrists have a treatment for Dunning-Kruger syndrome?

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

W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
> Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
>>>> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
>>>>
>>>>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>>>>
>>>> A denial is not a refutation.
>>>
>>> Definitely.
>>
>> Neither insults are
>
>> poor trash
>
>> The Shit
>
>> idiot guru

Apart of insults I have a proof. And you have
nothing, poor trash. Samely as your fellow
idiots.

Le 27/04/2024 à 16:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
>> Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
>>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
>>>>> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>>>>>
>>>>> A denial is not a refutation.
>>>>
>>>> Definitely.
>>>
>>> Neither insults are
>>
>>> poor trash
>>
>>> The Shit
>>
>>> idiot guru
>
> I have a proof

No you haven't.

Le 27/04/2024 à 14:22, Python a écrit :

> When presented the equation t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A your reaction was that
> this equation meant that both clocks tick at the same rate. Which is utterly
> ridiculous.

You lie.

J'ai toujours dit que deux horloges se trouvant dans le même
référentiel battaient à la même vitesse.

Il faudrait être particulièrement crétin pour penser le contraire.

Cette allégation est absurde.

"La notion de chronotropie est invariante par changement positionnel,
toutes les horloges d'un même référentiel battent à la même vitesse".
Sa Sainteté Richard Hachel, conférence de Toulouse.
26 novembre 1984.

Cesse de dire n'importe quoi.

De plus en utilisant un logiciel comme Nemo, créé au départ pour
faciliter l'utilisation de usenet,
son passage en http pour le (usenet) rendre plus universel, son interface
conviviale et les fonctionnalités nouvelles qui vont avec. Ca m'attriste
de voir Nemo utilisé contre lui même par tes conneries.

En plus tu y postes en mentant comme un arracheur de dents.

R.H.

W dniu 27.04.2024 o 16:50, Python pisze:
> Le 27/04/2024 à 16:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
>>>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
>>>>>> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A denial is not a refutation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Definitely.
>>>>
>>>> Neither insults are
>>>
>>>> poor trash
>>>
>>>> The Shit
>>>
>>>> idiot guru
>>
>> I have a proof
>
> No you haven't.

Yes, I have. A brainwashed idiot waving his arms,
insulting and screaming "NO!!!!!" is changing nothing.
>
>
>

Le 27/04/2024 à 18:09, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 27/04/2024 à 14:22, Python a écrit :
>
>> When presented the equation t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A your reaction was that
>> this equation meant that both clocks tick at the same rate. Which is
>> utterly ridiculous.
>
> You lie.

Let's check then:

https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/bbXPy-OQFw8J

Richard Hachel wrote:
> YBM wrote:
>> Let a ray of light start at the ``A time'' $t_{\rm A}$from A towards B, let it at the ``B time'' $t_{\rm B}$ be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arr
>> ive again at A at the ``A time'' $t'_{\rm A}$.
>> >
>> > In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> > t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B.
>
> ?????
>
> Attends, je rêve, là...
>
> Cela veut dire qu'Einstein trouve que les montres sont synchronisées si elles battent à la même vitesse???
>
> C'est ça que tu veux dire???
>
> Parce que l'équation dite ici dessus, c'est ça.

Translation of what *you* wrote about "t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B." :

" Am I dreaming here? Einstein said that clocks are synchronized if
they tick at the same rate??? Is it what you mean?
*Because the equation above means that.* "

I'm definitely not lying.

Le 27/04/2024 à 18:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 16:50, Python pisze:
>> Le 27/04/2024 à 16:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
>>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
>>>>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A denial is not a refutation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Definitely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither insults are
>>>>
>>>>> poor trash
>>>>
>>>>> The Shit
>>>>
>>>>> idiot guru
>>>
>>> I have a proof
>>
>> No you haven't.
>
> Yes, I have. A brainwashed  idiot waving his arms,
> insulting and screaming "NO!!!!!" is changing nothing.

You haven't. You got sensible arguments showing your
"proof" to be asinine, not "waving arms". That you are too
stupid and stubborn to get the point, and dishonest enough
to ignore them is not surprising though...

W dniu 27.04.2024 o 20:11, Python pisze:
> Le 27/04/2024 à 18:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 16:50, Python pisze:
>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 16:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 13:04, Python pisze:
>>>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 13:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:04, Python pisze:
>>>>>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 10:14, Mikko a écrit :
>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-26 17:43:03 +0000, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mais Hachel dans son immense génie réfute t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A denial is not a refutation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Definitely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither insults are
>>>>>
>>>>>> poor trash
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Shit
>>>>>
>>>>>> idiot guru
>>>>
>>>> I have a proof
>>>
>>> No you haven't.
>>
>> Yes, I have. A brainwashed  idiot waving his arms,
>> insulting and screaming "NO!!!!!" is changing nothing.
>
> You haven't.

Pointed directly to denying themself direct
predictions of the inconsistent physics
of your idiot guru.

> You got sensible arguments showing

Do you mean your mumble of your gedanken copies
of Earth or do you mean your insults, poor
trash?

Le 27/04/2024 à 20:09, Python a écrit :
>
>
> Translation of what *you* wrote about "t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B." :
>
> " Am I dreaming here? Einstein said that clocks are synchronized if
> they tick at the same rate? ? ? Is it what you mean?
> *Because the equation above means that.* "
>
> I'm definitely not lying.

All these dialogues are turning crazy.

We no longer understand anything you are saying.

Are you sure a psychiatric consultation couldn't help you?

R.H.

Le 27/04/2024 à 23:54, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 27/04/2024 à 20:09, Python a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Translation of what *you* wrote about "t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B." :
>>
>>     " Am I dreaming here? Einstein said that clocks are synchronized if
>>       they tick at the same rate? ? ? Is it what you mean?
>>       *Because the equation above means that.* "
>>
>> I'm definitely not lying.
>
> All these dialogues are turning crazy.
>
> We no longer understand anything you are saying.
>
> Are you sure a psychiatric consultation couldn't help you?

This is what you said and pretend not have said. PERIOD.