The great mistake of relativistic physicists.

They know that chronotropy is relative, just as winegrowers know that
mildew causes disasters in their vines.

But they don't know how to deal with it definitively, and with everyone's
approval.

R.H.

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 7:59:58 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
<off topic rants snipped>

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 16:02, Emmet Buchs a écrit :

Question: Why did you respond to "him"?

Still no answer?

Before you start new threads, you need to address the previous ones.
So your discussions are only one way... You permit yourself to ask questions and expect answers, but you never answered those ask you questions. I hope you realize this

mental retarded rotchm wrote:

> Before you start new threads, you need to address the previous ones.
> So your discussions are only one way... You permit yourself to ask
> questions and expect answers, but you never answered those ask you
> questions. I hope you realize this

you stinking pile of shit are not allowed to talk. You are stupid in
everything.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> The great mistake of relativistic physicists.

LOL.
> They know that chronotropy is relative, […]

“Chronotropy” as you mean it is a concept that *you* invented;
nothing more than another product of your insanity.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> The great mistake of relativistic physicists.
>
> They know that chronotropy is relative,

What's "chronotropy"?

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > The great mistake of relativistic physicists.
> >
> > They know that chronotropy is relative,
>
> What's "chronotropy"?
>
> Gobbledygook.

No, it is a kind of heart disease.
Nothing relative about it,
you may get absolutely dead by it,

Jan
(other)

Le 13/12/2021 à 07:19, JanPB a écrit :
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> The great mistake of relativistic physicists.
>>
>> They know that chronotropy is relative,
>
> What's "chronotropy"?
>
> Gobbledygook.
>
> --
> Jan

Chronotropy is the relativistic speed at which watches beat by frame
change.

His factor is sqrt(1-v²/c²).

Each watch observing that the other beats less quickly than its own.

If chronotropy of watch observed is t, the chronotropy in my watch is t'=
t/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

Warning! This is not the only effect.
It is also necessary to add a spatial anisochrony effect of the type
(1+cosµ.v/c) where µ is the angle between the direction of the body
observed and the angle of sight of the examiner.

Let, in total, t'= t.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 13/12/2021 à 07:19, JanPB a écrit :
>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> The great mistake of relativistic physicists.
>>> They know that chronotropy is relative,
>>
>> What's "chronotropy"? Gobbledygook. -- Jan
>
> Chronotropy is the relativistic speed at which watches beat by frame
> change.

watches are about frequency intervals, not speed.

Le 13/12/2021 à 18:33, Dwight Batta a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Le 13/12/2021 à 07:19, JanPB a écrit :
>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> The great mistake of relativistic physicists.
>>>> They know that chronotropy is relative,
>>>
>>> What's "chronotropy"? Gobbledygook. -- Jan
>>
>> Chronotropy is the relativistic speed at which watches beat by frame
>> change.
>
> watches are about frequency intervals, not speed.

En français, si. On parle de montres qui battent plus ou moins vite.

R.H.

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> The great mistake of relativistic physicists.
>

What frame do you choose to compare
and what do those different results give
to the accuracy of relativity?

Mitchell Raemsch

“Maybe you're just wandering around out here with your thumb up your ass, waiting for some answer that might let you off the hook.” ― Peter Matthiessen, In Paradise

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 13/12/2021 à 07:19, JanPB a écrit :
>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> The great mistake of relativistic physicists.
>>>
>>> They know that chronotropy is relative,
>>
>> What's "chronotropy"?
>>
>> Gobbledygook.
>
> Chronotropy is the relativistic speed at which watches beat by frame
> change.

It is a term for a FICTITIOUS effect that YOU INVENTED in order to appear
smart (to yourself), and to not have to deal with your own scientific
inadequacy (that prevents you from understanding special relativity).

PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> The great mistake of relativistic physicists.
>>
>>
> What frame do you choose to compare and what do those different results
> give to the accuracy of relativity?

any, but you have to treat it accordingly.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 7:08:33 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 13/12/2021 à 07:19, JanPB a écrit :
> > On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> The great mistake of relativistic physicists.
> >>
> >> They know that chronotropy is relative,
> >
> > What's "chronotropy"?
> >
> > Gobbledygook.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Chronotropy is the relativistic speed at which watches beat by frame
> change.

Gobbledygook. Meaningless word salad.

--
Jan