Clic here <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=adOwtPk77fbHDIm5R8jrC0zrlmo@jntp>

The speakers of this forum having been very kind in December, a Christmas
present is well deserved.
So I present them the little equation here.
It represents the two VISIBLE universes for two different observers who
intersect at the same place.
As you can see the transformation, in this specific case, is very simple.
It shows that for this precise case, we do not need any temporal
coordinates. It is just the universe observed by the two observers at the
very moment of their crossing.
We understand then that they observe exactly the same universe, but with
very important relativistic deformations.
"Space is a reference mollusk".

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?adOwtPk77fbHDIm5R8jrC0zrlmo@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Les intervenants de ce forum ayant été très gentil en décembre, il
sont bien mérité un cadeau de Noël.
Je leur présente donc la petite équation que voici.
Elle représente les deux univers VISIBLES pour deux observateurs
différents qui se croisent au même endroit.
Comme vous voyez la transformation, dans ce cas précis, est très simple.

Elle montre que pour ce cas précis, on n'a besoin d'aucune coordonnées
temporelles. C'est juste l'univers observé par les deux observateurs au
moment même de leur croisement O et O'.
On comprend alors qu'ils observent exactement le même univers, mais avec
des déformations métriques relativistes très importantes.
"L'espace est un mollusque de référence".

R.H.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=adOwtPk77fbHDIm5R8jrC0zrlmo@jntp>

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Clic here
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=adOwtPk77fbHDIm5R8jrC0zrlmo@jntp>
>
> The speakers of this forum having been very kind in December, a
> Christmas present is well deserved.
> So I present them the little equation here.
> It represents the two VISIBLE universes for two different observers who
> intersect at the same place.
> As you can see the transformation, in this specific case, is very simple.
> It shows that for this precise case, we do not need any temporal
> coordinates. It is just the universe observed by the two observers at
> the very moment of their crossing.
> We understand then that they observe exactly the same universe, but with
> very important relativistic deformations.
> "Space is a reference mollusk".
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?adOwtPk77fbHDIm5R8jrC0zrlmo@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Not linear. Violating Newton's principles. Trash.

Le 18/12/2021 à 04:32, le très sympathique Python a écrit :

>> "Space is a reference mollusk".
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?adOwtPk77fbHDIm5R8jrC0zrlmo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> Not linear.

On s'en fout, Jean-Pierre.

Ca va être Noël, mon chéri. Faut un petit feu dans la cheminée et
écoute les braises qui crépitent.

Mets de jolies boules colorées sur le sapin, et plein de beaux cadeaux
au pieds du sapin.

Et puis tu pourras chanter "Petit papa Noël" en écoutant Tino Rossi.
C'est bô.

Ne t'inquiète pas des choses que tu ne comprends pas actuellement.
Tu les comprendras l'années prochaine, peut-être.

Il n'y a pas urgence.

> Violating Newton's principles. Trash.

Accusation de viol, c'est grave, ça.

Mais ça tient pas.

J'étais pas né en 1728. Et il est mort l'année d'avant.

Sois gentil, Jean-Pierre.

Il faut honorer tes parents par un comportement irréprochable sur le
web.

Tiens bon, tu vas réussir.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 18/12/2021 à 04:32, le très sympathique Python a écrit :
>
>>> "Space is a reference mollusk".
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?adOwtPk77fbHDIm5R8jrC0zrlmo@jntp/
Data.Media:1>
>
>> Not linear.
>
> On s'en fout, Jean-Pierre.
> Ca va être Noël, mon chéri. Faut un petit feu dans la cheminée et
> écoute les braises qui crépitent.

would you put in fucking engilsh, très sympathique.

Richard 'Hachel' Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 18/12/2021 à 04:32, le très sympathique Python a écrit :
>
>>> "Space is a reference mollusk".
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?adOwtPk77fbHDIm5R8jrC0zrlmo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
>
>> Not linear.
>
> On s'en fout

You should care. Newton's first principle states this:

"A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a
straight line, unless acted upon by a force."

Such a motion, represented as a set of events (x,y,z,t) (i.e. at
time t the body is at coordinates (x,y,z)), is a straight line
in R^4. Newton's first law is true in all frames, so a transformation
of coordinates between frames MUST transform straight lines into
straight lines. It is a mathematical FACT that ONLY linear
transformations have this property.

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 7:51:14 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Ca va être Noël, mon chéri. Faut un petit feu dans la cheminée et
> écoute les braises qui crépitent.

<Off topic cries snipped>

This is a physics/SR NG in case you have not noticed.
Lear some respect.

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

Le 18/12/2021 à 14:43, Python a écrit :
> You should care. Newton's first principle states this:
>
> "A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a
> straight line, unless acted upon by a force."
>
> Such a motion, represented as a set of events (x,y,z,t) (i.e. at
> time t the body is at coordinates (x,y,z)), is a straight line
> in R^4. Newton's first law is true in all frames, so a transformation
> of coordinates between frames MUST transform straight lines into
> straight lines. It is a mathematical FACT that ONLY linear
> transformations have this property.

But I don't want to turn straight lines into straight lines, my beloved
love.
I just want to explain the things of nature.
Newton can have anal sex with whoever he wants, that's his problem. He's
at home.
Me, I am at home, and I do what I want.
For me, when two observers meet and trigger their watch, each sees HIS
universe.
The two (or more if several observers intersect) universes are the same.
We have
y '= y,
z '= z,
and t '= t = 0.
That's what Newton said.
And Newton was right about that.
Where Einstein brings his big mouth back, and had better buckle up, is
when he comes to piss us off with his refutation of t '= t.
The problem is, it doesn't look good either.
The only one who has a big enough cock (notion of virility) is me.
And what am I saying?
I say :
x'= [x + sqrt (x² + y² + z²) v/c] / sqrt (1-v²/c²)
y'= y
z'= z
t'= t = 0

We can criticize, we can threaten, we can throw ourselves to the ground
shouting.

What I said, I said it.

“And yet the earth turns” Galileo.

"And yet, they observe the same universe" Richard Hachel.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 18/12/2021 à 14:43, Python a écrit :
>> You should care. Newton's first principle states this:
>>
>> "A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a
>> straight line, unless acted upon by a force."
>>
>> Such a motion, represented as a set of events (x,y,z,t) (i.e. at
>> time t the body is at coordinates (x,y,z)), is a straight line
>> in R^4. Newton's first law is true in all frames, so a transformation
>> of coordinates between frames MUST transform straight lines into
>> straight lines. It is a mathematical FACT that ONLY linear
>> transformations have this property.
>
> But I don't want to turn straight lines into straight lines

This is a requirement for transformations between inertial
frames to conform to Newton's first law of motion. This
law is confirmed by experiments.

> Me, I am at home, and I do what I want.

You can. Sure. Don't pretend it's about physics, it is not.
What you claim is stupid, idiotic, inconsistent garbage.

Le 18/12/2021 à 19:29, Python a écrit :
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>> Le 18/12/2021 à 14:43, Python a écrit :
>>> You should care. Newton's first principle states this:
>>>
>>> "A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a
>>> straight line, unless acted upon by a force."
>>>
>>> Such a motion, represented as a set of events (x,y,z,t) (i.e. at
>>> time t the body is at coordinates (x,y,z)), is a straight line
>>> in R^4. Newton's first law is true in all frames, so a transformation
>>> of coordinates between frames MUST transform straight lines into
>>> straight lines. It is a mathematical FACT that ONLY linear
>>> transformations have this property.
>>
>> But I don't want to turn straight lines into straight lines
>
> This is a requirement for transformations between inertial
> frames to conform to Newton's first law of motion. This
> law is confirmed by experiments.
>
>> Me, I am at home, and I do what I want.
>
> You can. Sure. Don't pretend it's about physics, it is not.
> What you claim is stupid, idiotic, inconsistent garbage.

Ce qui est rigolo, c'est que tu te jette comme un python fou sur ma
formule.

Il parait qu'elle est pas bien.

Tu lui reproches quoi?

Ou tu me reproche t=t'=0, et là, c'est à Newton que tu le reproches,
ou tu me reproches y'=y et z'=z et là je me demande ce que tu reproches,
ou tu me reproches x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²) qui est la
même formule que Lorentz,
c'est à dire x'=γ(x-vt) mais rédigée de façon différente.

Tu me reproches qui?

HELP!

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 18/12/2021 à 19:29, Python a écrit :
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>> Le 18/12/2021 à 14:43, Python a écrit :
>>>> You should care. Newton's first principle states this:
>>>>
>>>> "A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a
>>>> straight line, unless acted upon by a force."
>>>>
>>>> Such a motion, represented as a set of events (x,y,z,t) (i.e. at
>>>> time t the body is at coordinates (x,y,z)), is a straight line
>>>> in R^4. Newton's first law is true in all frames, so a transformation
>>>> of coordinates between frames MUST transform straight lines into
>>>> straight lines. It is a mathematical FACT that ONLY linear
>>>> transformations have this property.
>>>
>>> But I don't want to turn straight lines into straight lines
>>
>> This is a requirement for transformations between inertial
>> frames to conform to Newton's first law of motion. This
>> law is confirmed by experiments.
>>
>>> Me, I am at home, and I do what I want.
>>
>> You can. Sure. Don't pretend it's about physics, it is not.
>> What you claim is stupid, idiotic, inconsistent garbage.
>
> Ce qui est rigolo, c'est que tu te jette comme un python fou sur ma
> formule.
>
> Il parait qu'elle est pas bien.
>
> Tu lui reproches quoi?
> Ou tu me reproche t=t'=0, et là, c'est à Newton que tu le reproches,
> ou tu me reproches y'=y et z'=z et là je me demande ce que tu reproches,
> ou tu me reproches x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²) qui est la même
> formule que Lorentz,

It is NOT the same formula as in Lorentz Transformations. Lorentz
expression for x' is linear in (x,y,z,t). Your equation is NOT.

Why are you constantly lying, Richard? Does it make you feel better?

On 12/18/2021 1:10 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/12/2021 à 14:43, Python a écrit :
>> You should care. Newton's first principle states this:
>>
>> "A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a
>> straight line, unless acted upon by a force."
>>
>> Such a motion, represented as a set of events (x,y,z,t) (i.e. at
>> time t the body is at coordinates (x,y,z)), is a straight line
>> in R^4. Newton's first law is true in all frames, so a transformation
>> of coordinates between frames MUST transform straight lines into
>> straight lines. It is a mathematical FACT that ONLY linear
>> transformations have this property.
>
> But I don't want to turn straight lines into straight lines, my beloved
> love.
> I just want to explain the things of nature.
> Newton can have anal sex with whoever he wants, that's his problem. He's
> at home.

No need to get weird and fantasize about sex with Newton. Python simply
was pointing out a legitimate flaw with your claim, violating the first
law. It makes perfect sense, observing something shouldn't change the
observations simply by using different reference frames.

> Me, I am at home, and I do what I want.
> For me, when two observers meet and trigger their watch, each sees HIS
> universe.
> The two (or more if several observers intersect) universes are the same.

So one who sees straight line motion should mean the other(s) should see
straight line motion, correct?

[snip more literal penis-waving]

> And what am I saying?
> I say :
> x'= [x + sqrt (x² + y² + z²) v/c] / sqrt (1-v²/c²)
> y'= y
> z'= z
> t'= t = 0

And this makes the observations change based on the reference frames.
Which is wrong by your own "observers should see the same universe"
statement.
>
> We can criticize, we can threaten, we can throw ourselves to the ground
> shouting.
>
> What I said, I said it.
>
> “And yet the earth turns” Galileo.
>
> "And yet, they observe the same universe" Richard Hachel.
>
But "x'= [x + sqrt (x² + y² + z²) v/c] / sqrt (1-v²/c²)" means they
don't. That's all.

Le 18/12/2021 à 19:44, Python a écrit :

> x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²) qui est la même
>> formule que Lorentz,
>
> It is NOT the same formula as in Lorentz Transformations. Lorentz
> expression for x' is linear in (x,y,z,t). Your equation is NOT.

x'= γ (x-vt)
and
x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

C'est strictement la même chose.

It's strictly the same.

R.H.

Idiotic Crank Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 18/12/2021 à 19:44, Python a écrit :
>
>> x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²) qui est la même
>>> formule que Lorentz,
>>
>> It is NOT the same formula as in Lorentz Transformations. Lorentz
>> expression for x' is linear in (x,y,z,t). Your equation is NOT.
>
> x'= γ (x-vt)
> and
> x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>
> C'est strictement la même chose.
> It's strictly the same.

Of course it is not, just plug some values and compare.

How can you be either that stupid or blatantly lying so
stupidly Richard?

On 12/18/2021 1:41 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/12/2021 à 19:29, Python a écrit :
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>> Le 18/12/2021 à 14:43, Python a écrit :
>>>> You should care. Newton's first principle states this:
>>>>
>>>> "A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a
>>>> straight line, unless acted upon by a force."
>>>>
>>>> Such a motion, represented as a set of events (x,y,z,t) (i.e. at
>>>> time t the body is at coordinates (x,y,z)), is a straight line
>>>> in R^4. Newton's first law is true in all frames, so a transformation
>>>> of coordinates between frames MUST transform straight lines into
>>>> straight lines. It is a mathematical FACT that ONLY linear
>>>> transformations have this property.
>>>
>>> But I don't want to turn straight lines into straight lines
>>
>> This is a requirement for transformations between inertial
>> frames to conform to Newton's first law of motion. This
>> law is confirmed by experiments.
>>
>>> Me, I am at home, and I do what I want.
>>
>> You can. Sure. Don't pretend it's about physics, it is not.
>> What you claim is stupid, idiotic, inconsistent garbage.
>
> Ce qui est rigolo, c'est que tu te jette comme un python fou sur ma
> formule.
>
> Il parait qu'elle est pas bien.
>
> Tu lui reproches quoi?
> Ou tu me reproche t=t'=0, et là, c'est à Newton que tu le reproches,
> ou tu me reproches y'=y et z'=z et là je me demande ce que tu reproches,
> ou tu me reproches x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²) qui est la même
> formule que Lorentz,
> c'est à dire x'=γ(x-vt) mais rédigée de façon différente.
> Tu me reproches qui?

Saying your formula is the Lorentz transform reworded is wrong. By
algebraic simplification, it would mean vt = -sqrt(x²+y²+z²), which
nobody, particularly Lorentz, ever claimed.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/12/2021 à 14:43, Python a écrit :
>> You should care. Newton's first principle states this:
>>
>> "A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a
>> straight line, unless acted upon by a force."
>>
>> Such a motion, represented as a set of events (x,y,z,t) (i.e. at
>> time t the body is at coordinates (x,y,z)), is a straight line
>> in R^4. Newton's first law is true in all frames, so a transformation
>> of coordinates between frames MUST transform straight lines into
>> straight lines. It is a mathematical FACT that ONLY linear
>> transformations have this property.
>
> But I don't want to turn straight lines into straight lines, my beloved
> love.
> I just want to explain the things of nature.
> Newton can have anal sex with whoever he wants, that's his problem. He's
> at home.
> Me, I am at home, and I do what I want.
> For me, when two observers meet and trigger their watch, each sees HIS
> universe.
> The two (or more if several observers intersect) universes are the same.
> We have
> y '= y,
> z '= z,
> and t '= t = 0.
> That's what Newton said.
> And Newton was right about that.
> Where Einstein brings his big mouth back, and had better buckle up, is
> when he comes to piss us off with his refutation of t '= t.
> The problem is, it doesn't look good either.
> The only one who has a big enough cock (notion of virility) is me.
> And what am I saying?
> I say :
> x'= [x + sqrt (x² + y² + z²) v/c] / sqrt (1-v²/c²)
> y'= y
> z'= z
> t'= t = 0
>
> We can criticize, we can threaten, we can throw ourselves to the ground
> shouting.
>
> What I said, I said it.
>
> “And yet the earth turns” Galileo.
>
> "And yet, they observe the same universe" Richard Hachel.
>

Comparing yourself to Galileo is a well known sign of a crackpot.

>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 18/12/2021 à 20:00, Python a écrit :

>> x'= γ (x-vt)
>> and
>> x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>
>> C'est strictement la même chose.
>> It's strictly the same.
>
> Of course it is not

Of course, it is.

It's strictly the same.

Jean-Pierre, my sweet love : just plug some values and compare.

R.H.

Python wrote:

>> x'= γ (x-vt)
>> and x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>
>> C'est strictement la même chose.
>> It's strictly the same.
>
> Of course it is not, just plug some values and compare.
> How can you be either that stupid or blatantly lying so stupidly
> Richard?

no need for. You can just equate the right side, and the z will stay
alone.

Le 18/12/2021 à 20:02, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> Comparing yourself to Galileo is a well known sign of a crackpot.

What do you want me to compare myself to?
I say that "two observers who cross at the same place, will observe
exactly the same universe, but spatially very distorted, because space is
a mollusk of reference".
The whole world placed on the scale of a scale and me all alone on the
other, I continue to affirm it.
"And yet, they observe the same universe".
Was Galileo lying? No.
What about me, am I lying?

R.H.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> formule que Lorentz,
>> c'est à dire x'=γ(x-vt) mais rédigée de façon différente.
>> Tu me reproches qui?
>
> Saying your formula is the Lorentz transform reworded is wrong. By
> algebraic simplification, it would mean vt = -sqrt(x²+y²+z²), which
> nobody, particularly Lorentz, ever claimed.

you polish guys are going to burn your fingers once again. This time with
nuclear weapons in the middle of the fascist europe.

“As President [Alexander] Lukashenko said, we are considering the
possibility of deploying nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus as
one of the potential responses to future possible actions by the NATO
bloc on the territory of Poland,” Belarusian Foreign Minister Vladimir
Makei told RT Arabic in an exclusive interview on Friday.

In late November, Lukashenko floated the idea as an option if US atomic
missiles were to be deployed deeper into Eastern Europe.

“I will suggest that [Russia’s President Vladimir] Putin return nuclear
weapons to Belarus,” Lukashenko stated, adding that “those nuclear
armaments would be the most effective” deterrent.

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 11:03:01 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 18/12/2021 à 14:43, Python a écrit :
> >> You should care. Newton's first principle states this:
> >>
> >> "A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a
> >> straight line, unless acted upon by a force."
> >>
> >> Such a motion, represented as a set of events (x,y,z,t) (i.e. at
> >> time t the body is at coordinates (x,y,z)), is a straight line
> >> in R^4. Newton's first law is true in all frames, so a transformation
> >> of coordinates between frames MUST transform straight lines into
> >> straight lines. It is a mathematical FACT that ONLY linear
> >> transformations have this property.
> >
> > But I don't want to turn straight lines into straight lines, my beloved
> > love.
> > I just want to explain the things of nature.
> > Newton can have anal sex with whoever he wants, that's his problem. He's
> > at home.
> > Me, I am at home, and I do what I want.
> > For me, when two observers meet and trigger their watch, each sees HIS
> > universe.
> > The two (or more if several observers intersect) universes are the same..
> > We have
> > y '= y,
> > z '= z,
> > and t '= t = 0.
> > That's what Newton said.
> > And Newton was right about that.
> > Where Einstein brings his big mouth back, and had better buckle up, is
> > when he comes to piss us off with his refutation of t '= t.
> > The problem is, it doesn't look good either.
> > The only one who has a big enough cock (notion of virility) is me.
> > And what am I saying?
> > I say :
> > x'= [x + sqrt (x² + y² + z²) v/c] / sqrt (1-v²/c²)
> > y'= y
> > z'= z
> > t'= t = 0
> >
> > We can criticize, we can threaten, we can throw ourselves to the ground
> > shouting.
> >
> > What I said, I said it.
> >
> > “And yet the earth turns” Galileo.
> >
> > "And yet, they observe the same universe" Richard Hachel.
> >
> Comparing yourself to Galileo is a well known sign of a crackpot.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

#35... "40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on."

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/12/2021 à 20:02, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> Comparing yourself to Galileo is a well known sign of a crackpot.
>
> What do you want me to compare myself to?
> I say that "two observers who cross at the same place, will observe
> exactly the same universe, but spatially very distorted, because space is
> a mollusk of reference".
> The whole world placed on the scale of a scale and me all alone on the
> other, I continue to affirm it.

Yes, not surprising. That’s what people in your shape do.

> "And yet, they observe the same universe".
> Was Galileo lying? No.
> What about me, am I lying?

No, not lying. Just mistaken, unwell, and blind.

>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 18/12/2021 à 20:00, Python a écrit :
>>> x'= γ (x-vt)
^
>>> and
>>> x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>>
>>> C'est strictement la même chose.
>>> It's strictly the same.
>>
>> Of course it is not
>
> Of course, it is.
>
> It's strictly the same.
>
> Jean-Pierre, my sweet love : just plug some values and compare.

It is truly sad to see your incompetence making it unable for you to realize
the same. (Dunning—Kruger effect)

Those two equations CANNOT be equivalent already for the simple fact that
your "transformation" does NOT include the temporal coordinate: THERE IS NO
t ANYWHERE in it.

Further analysis shows that the equation in the LORENTZ transformation (and
indeed, the entire transformation, as I have proved to you before), is
LINEAR, while YOURS is NOT.

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 18/12/2021 à 20:02, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Comparing yourself to Galileo is a well known sign of a crackpot.
>
> What do you want me to compare myself to?
> I say that "two observers who cross at the same place, will observe
> exactly the same universe, but spatially very distorted, because space is
> a mollusk of reference".
> The whole world placed on the scale of a scale and me all alone on the
> other, I continue to affirm it.
> "And yet, they observe the same universe".
> Was Galileo lying? No.
> What about me, am I lying?

Not necessarily. You may actually believe what you are saying, but that
would only be because you are too incompetent to realize that what you are
saying is devoid of meaning.

For example, above are claiming: “space is a mollusk of reference”.

These are mollusks: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollusca>

So you are effectively saying that space is an animal. *facepalm*

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

Le 25/12/2021 à 05:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

>>>> x'= γ (x-vt) ^
>>>> and
>>>> x'=[x+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>>>
>>>> C'est strictement la même chose.
>>>> It's strictly the same.

> It is truly sad to see your incompetence making it unable for you to realize
> the same. (Dunning—Kruger effect)
>
> Those two equations CANNOT be equivalent already for the simple fact that
> your "transformation" does NOT include the temporal coordinate: THERE IS NO
> t ANYWHERE in it.
>
> Further analysis shows that the equation in the LORENTZ transformation (and
> indeed, the entire transformation, as I have proved to you before), is
> LINEAR, while YOURS is NOT.

It's very difficult to chat with people who don't have the conversational
level with me.

It's very difficult to chat with people who don't have the conversational
level with me.

What is terrible is that each time, I have to explain the same thing
again, and people will say that I am spamming.

So I start again:
x'= γ (x-vt)
and
x' = 1+sqrt(x²+y²+z²)]/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
it's the SAME equation, but written in two different forms.

1. It's your fault if you don't understand that in the first one, "To" has
a negative sign.

2. It is your fault if you do not understand that in the second, it is not
obligatory to appear t or To, since I made it clear that t = To = 0 since
all the observers of the universe intersect at the origin at this precise
moment.

> PointedEars

R.H.

Le 25/12/2021 à 05:26, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

> For example, above are claiming: “space is a mollusk of reference”.

> So you are effectively saying that space is an animal.

? ? ?

Help!

R.H.