During our last exchanges on the thread "the traveler of Tau Ceti", I said
that between me and the relativistic physicists, that is to say between my
concepts and theirs, there was necessarily an error, since we do not
obtain the same numerical results at the end of the race for the traveler
of the stars.
Logic dictates that it is me who is wrong.
But three important facts should be noted.
The first thing is that I FIRST calculate the time taken by the traveler
himself using much simpler formulas than theirs. Hence a lower risk of
error. First thing.
I then find a time that is distinctly different from theirs.
But it is not this which is astonishing, it is that they first calculate
the time observed by the terrestrial observer, and then they deduce the
time taken by the other. In short, they do the opposite of me.
What is strange, as I said, is that they have the same result as me for
the terrestrial observer, whereas that is what they calculate first, and
that is what I calculate Secondly.
Do you understand the problem? It's still very strange that, from an error
I made on the first beat, I fall correctly on the value of the second.
It's absurd.
However, the reverse is not true. They may very well have correctly
calculated the first time, and have made a methodological error in
calculating the second (the time observed by the star traveler).
Third, you know my curious mind. I wanted to know where the error could
be, either on my side or theirs. On my side, I found nothing, but on
theirs, I noted this sentence which seems like little important, but in
which hides a terrible trap.
"Page 50: We can admit that during a short interval of time, between t and
t+dt, the speed of the rocket practically did not vary."
As long as we do, we can also admit that if t=0, the rocket has not moved.
I even know some who are ready to admit that a dog is a dog, and that when
a swallow flies: it flies.
However, this is a dramatic error because if it is true that the speed has
changed negligibly, we are talking about a negligible sequence of time
over negligible spaces traveled.
This is how it should be done:
To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
We therefore have dTo2=dTr2.sqrt(1+(Vr+dVr)²/c²)
I don't find it wise to neglect all small dVr.
I think the error is on their side.
And that it comes from there.
We can clearly see that if we neglect all the dVr (i.e. an infinity of
tiny speed increments placed one after the other during an infinitely
large period), we will have a lower final result (look at the equation)
than what is the reality of things. Relativists say it doesn't matter
much. I agree, it doesn't matter much. And it even plays on very little as
x is small and t is small. And so dv becomes more and more negligible. But
each time, we must not forget that we considerably increase the number of
small portions to be included, and that what we gain on one side, we lose
on the other.
In short, do NOT simplify.
You must ask:
dTo=dTr.sqrt(1+[Vr+dVr]²/c²)
and not dTo=dTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Otherwise, we will find a slightly lower result, and all the more false as
the speeds become high.
Their result is indeed lower than mine.
And, I repeat, with them, it's at the end of the race that the
disagreement with me arrives.
While conversely, I find the same result as them at the end of the race.
They therefore erred somewhat in their second part of the exercise, and
obviously not me. You can't make a mistake in the first part, and fall
right at the end of the second, it's absurd.
But the converse is clearly evident.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> During our last exchanges on the thread "the traveler of Tau Ceti", I
> said that between me and the relativistic physicists, that is to say
> between my concepts and theirs, there was necessarily an error, since we
> do not obtain the same numerical results at the end of the race for the
> traveler of the stars.

what the idiots from nasa did, was to send a naked man and a naked woman,
into a probe outer space, with details for finding Earth to aliens from
other planets. Amazing, the level of idiocy in that country.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> ...
> The first thing is that I FIRST calculate the time taken by the traveler
> himself using much simpler formulas than theirs.

- I'm very fast at mathematics
- Really, what is sqrt(789)?
- 12
- It's a wrong answer...
- Sure, but I answered quickly

> "Page 50: We can admit that during a short interval of time, between t
> and t+dt, the speed of the rocket practically did not vary."
> As long as we do, we can also admit that if t=0, the rocket has not moved.

The value of t (0 or whatever) is irrelevant, and this, you wrote
below:

> ... Relativists say it doesn't matter
> much. I agree, it doesn't matter much. And it even plays on very little
> as x is small and t is small. And so dv becomes more and more
> negligible.

shows how highly you are confused about calculus. Magnitude of x or
t are irrelevant when it comes to values of dx or dt. You do not
understand calculus, amongst a lot of other topics.

Le 03/02/2022 à 20:38, Python a écrit :

> shows how highly you are confused about calculus. Magnitude of x or
> t are irrelevant when it comes to values of dx or dt. You do not
> understand calculus, amongst a lot of other topics.

dTo=dTr.sqrt(1+[Vr+dVr]²/c²)
and not dTo=dTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

J'ai d'ailleurs parlé, on s'en souvient de l'erreur incroyable de Newton
quand il parle de l'incrément ab
d'une surface AB.

Il y a une polémique qui eut lieu à l'époque entre lui et Berkeley.

Pour Berkeley, (A+a)(B+b)=AB+aB+Ba+ab

Pour Newton, si a et b sont petits, il faut écrire (A+a)(B+b)=AB+aB+Ba,
et pour le prouver, il part dans un délire mathématique où il fait une
grossière erreur mathématique (que j'ai déjà expliquée).

Si tu as du courage relis les posts là dessus.

Preuve que de grands hommes peuvent faire des bourdes de concepts,
notamment en considérant mal les infinitésimaux.

Dans le même genre, l'histoire d'Achille et la tortue, où Achille ne
rattrapera jamais la tortue.

Le piège mathématique est évident : plus l'on divise l'intervalle de
temps qui reste à Achille pour attraper la tortue, et ainsi jusqu'à
l'infini, il ne rattrapera jamais la tortue.

C'est des erreurs dans ce genre là que de grands hommes peuvent faire.

Je pense qu'il en est de même avec cette histoire de vitesse où l'on
néglige des trucs (c'est vrai que
l'incrément de vitesse est très faible voire infinitésimal. Mais dans
le même temps les intervalle de distances ou de temps deviennent eux
aussi, infinitésimaux, et mélanger ainsi trois infinitésimaux (vitesse,
temps, espace), je ne suis pas sûr que ça conduise à une simplification
que je préfère ne pas faire et qui, grand bien m'en fasse, me conduisent
à un temps de trajet pour le sujet dans la fusée assez différent de ce
qu'ils prédisent.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 03/02/2022 à 20:38, Python a écrit :
>
>> shows how highly you are confused about calculus. Magnitude of x or
>> t are irrelevant when it comes to values of dx or dt. You do not
>> understand calculus, amongst a lot of other topics.
>
> dTo=dTr.sqrt(1+[Vr+dVr]²/c²)
> and not dTo=dTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
>
> J'ai d'ailleurs parlé, on s'en souvient de l'erreur incroyable de Newton
> quand il parle de l'incrément ab d'une surface AB.

This is irrelevant. You pretended that the value of dt or dx are
small if t or x are also small, this a HUGE misunderstanding of
basics of calculus.

> Il y a une polémique qui eut lieu à l'époque entre lui et Berkeley.
> Pour Berkeley, (A+a)(B+b)=AB+aB+Ba+ab
>
> Pour Newton, si a et b sont petits, il faut écrire (A+a)(B+b)=AB+aB+Ba,
> et pour le prouver, il part dans un délire mathématique où il fait une
> grossière erreur mathématique (que j'ai déjà expliquée).

1. Newton did NOT pretend that
2. I (and others) have debunked your claim, you just don't understand
AT ALL what the debate between Berkeley and Newton is about
3. This is an English-speaking newsgroup.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> During our last exchanges on the thread "the traveler of Tau Ceti", I said
> that between me and the relativistic physicists, that is to say between my
> concepts and theirs, there was necessarily an error, […]

Yes, the error is yours, and that produces wrong results.

PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

Le 03/02/2022 à 22:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> During our last exchanges on the thread "the traveler of Tau Ceti", I said
>> that between me and the relativistic physicists, that is to say between my
>> concepts and theirs, there was necessarily an error, […]
>
> Yes, the error is yours, and that produces wrong results.

The problem is not there.
The problem is that SR has become a religion, even if things don't fit.
We can no longer argue with religious fanatics. Even and above all in a
logical and constructive way.
Always, always, always, they will tell you that their religion is the
right one, and that it is wrong to criticize it.
This is obviously not scientific.
Already, a real scientist would ask himself a question: why does Doctor
Hachel say that one of his results is correct (since the same as that of
the relativists, it would be surprising if BOTH, by different processes,
were wrong) and that the result which is correct is the second (it passes
first by the observer resyé on earth contrary to the relativists who pass
first by the cosmonaut). How can it get a correct result from the second
observer if the result from the first is wrong? ? ?
It is therefore inevitably the physicists who are mistaken in their
calculation for the second observer (the terrestrial one).
It's still not hard to understand, and in a normally constituted forum,
where people think, we should "still" ask the question.
Moreover, I tried by re-reading myself, and by re-reading them, to find
where the error could be.
I did not find anything very objectionable at home, on the other hand, I
found this simplification of the speeds operated in the second part of
their problem as very abusive, and I think that their error comes from
there.
We are not allowed to simplify (Vr+dVr)²/c² to Vr²/c². This will lead
to finding a not insignificant shorter time for the observer placed in the
rocket. For example, I have a trip that will take two years and 338 days
in the rocket's repository (for a trip to Alpha Centauri and 4.5ly)
Scientists find only two years and 114 days. I explained why they found
less and where the error came from which can ONLY be with them, since at
the end of the race I have a correct answer to their first question, while
the reverse is not not true. Which should "all the same" raise some doubts
about the way they treat this second part and the way they misuse
infinitesimals, a source of misunderstandings and bad concepts.

> PointedEars

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
....
> We are not allowed to simplify (Vr+dVr)²/c² to Vr²/c². This will lead to
> finding a not insignificant shorter time for the observer placed in the
> rocket. For example, I have a trip that will take two years and 338 days
> in the rocket's repository (for a trip to Alpha Centauri and 4.5ly)
> Scientists find only two years and 114 days. I explained why they found
> less and where the error came from which can ONLY be with them, since at
> the end of the race I have a correct answer to their first question,
> while the reverse is not not true. Which should "all the same" raise
> some doubts about the way they treat this second part and the way they
> misuse infinitesimals, a source of misunderstandings and bad concepts.

*facepalm*

Finitesimal are in no way involved in derivation of SR formulas.
Physisists tend to use infinitesimal-like symbols like dt or dx
and Newton-style demonstration because it fits their intuition.

Nevertheless the whole calculus is built for one century and an
half on limits and not infinitesimals.

You cas easily find derivations of SR which does not contain this
kind of shortcuts (x + dx, etc.). Did you even try? I guess not.

You are a fractal of mystakes and misconceptions, fallacies into
confusions this is your mantra.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 03/02/2022 à 22:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> During our last exchanges on the thread "the traveler of Tau Ceti", I said
>>> that between me and the relativistic physicists, that is to say between my
>>> concepts and theirs, there was necessarily an error, […]
>>
>> Yes, the error is yours, and that produces wrong results.
>
> The problem is not there.
> The problem is that SR has become a religion, even if things don't fit.

But p=mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) DOES fit. It works for all massive objects, at all
speeds. That is factually verified. You have said so yourself.

The response you offered is that you’d rather people look at your version
of the same statement, where you have substituted v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) with a
new label Vr. This adds nothing of course, nor does it solve any lack of
“fit”.

The fact that you get no one interested in your 5-component coordinates, no
one interested in your little label Vr, then causes you to complain that
relativity seems to be a religion. And if you find something difficult to
understand, then it is (in your mind) a problem with the explanation, not a
problem with your comprehension.

I think the only religion that is involved here is your self-worship.

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

Le 03/02/2022 à 23:04, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> you have substituted v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) with a
> new label Vr.

Yes.

You understood me perfectly.

By this I mean that we never observe the actual speeds of things.

When we measure things, we only measure an observable velocity Vo.

And never the actual Vr value.

At very low speeds, it is not disturbing.

As is not disturbing not to live in perfect simultaneity with his wife or
his children (spatial anisochrony).

As it is also not disturbing that this man passing by on his bicycle has a
watch that beats less quickly than mine (relative chronotropy).

All this because in our world, these effects are not, or very little,
measurable.

Obviously, in a laboratory, we will quickly see that something is wrong
when particles launched at Vo=0.6c have a momentum that we would rather
expect at 0.75c.

Or when particles endowed with an impulse which should make them pass at
Vr=1.333c have a measurable speed of Vo=0.8c only.

There is the real world, and the observable world.

The observable world is observed through the distorting mirror of spatial
anisochrony. The biggest and toughest lure to root out of men's minds is
the lure of the speed of light.

They measure it at 3.10^8m/s.

They do not understand that it is only the observable speed of the thing,
and yet they observe the universe live-live.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 03/02/2022 à 23:04, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> you have substituted v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) with a
>> new label Vr.
>
> Yes.
>
> You understood me perfectly.

And did you understand me perfectly when I told you that this label adds
nothing of value?

The value of the speed that is measured is v. That is its actual speed.

The relationship between the MEASURED v and the MEASURED momentum p is
p=mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

There is nothing mysterious about this at all. It comes from direct
confirmation by measuring p and measuring v and seeing if this relation
holds, which it does.

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

On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 23:04:32 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 03/02/2022 à 22:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> >> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>
> >>> During our last exchanges on the thread "the traveler of Tau Ceti", I said
> >>> that between me and the relativistic physicists, that is to say between my
> >>> concepts and theirs, there was necessarily an error, […]
> >>
> >> Yes, the error is yours, and that produces wrong results.
> >
> > The problem is not there.
> > The problem is that SR has become a religion, even if things don't fit.
> But p=mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) DOES fit. It works for all massive objects, at all
> speeds. That is factually verified. You have said so yourself.

Somehow, Feynman had a different opinion, poor halfbrain.

Le 03/02/2022 à 23:37, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> And did you understand me perfectly when I told you that this label adds
> nothing of value?
>
> The value of the speed that is measured is v. That is its actual speed.

No.

YOU, you said that's his actual speed.

I beg you to read the few lines that I have been writing regularly here
for several weeks.

I repeat over and over like a parrot that the nature of space and time
MAKES us not observe the real speed of things.

I talked about spatial anisochrony, it's a concept that children can
easily understand if they think about it.

The nature of space and time means that two different places in space can
never co-exist in a present time plane that is absolute to them.
This ashtray placed on the fireplace, and this cup placed on the table are
three meters apart.
They are also distant IN TIME of 10 nanoseconds.

It's like that.

Is it hard for you to understand this principle?

If so, ask for help.

Take a few cups of coffee.

I beg you to believe that a kid of nine or eleven understands very well
what I mean if he makes the simple effort to understand it, he does it in
a few seconds.

From there, when we measure a speed, ie a displacement in space (but also
in time which is included in this space), our measurement is biased by
this anisochrony.

We will then measure a speed which is not the real speed of movement in
this space.

In everyday life, it is not important to know this, but when it comes to
relativistic velocities, we see immediately that the quantities of
movement will no longer follow a straight line with respect to the speed.

We always have p=m.v
because the law does not change for "another law".

But you have to take the right v.

It is no longer necessary to take the measurable (or observable) speed Vo,
with an O like Oscar, but the real speed Vr with an R like Romeo.

We then set Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Then we set p=m.Vr

It's childishly simple.

A purely human problem then opens up, which is this: "We don't want
Richard Hachel to reign over us".

I am a great democrat.

I admit it.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 03/02/2022 à 23:37, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> And did you understand me perfectly when I told you that this label adds
>> nothing of value?
>>
>> The value of the speed that is measured is v. That is its actual speed.
>
> No.
>
> YOU, you said that's his actual speed.

No, PHYSICISTS say that it is his actual speed, which is measured directly
by measuring elapsed time and measured distance.

You seem to think that measuring the speed of an object is somehow
impossible. Physicists do not see it as impossible.

And once again, this is the reason nobody buys into your hokum, because

1. You say that simple things are impossible to do, that physicists say are
obviously easy to do.

2. You say that physicists’ explanation of relativity is impenetrable,
while tens of thousands of students have no trouble understanding it at
all.

And so the large artifices you have assembled to try to have things make
sense TO YOU are simply not needed by most people.

>
> I beg you to read the few lines that I have been writing regularly here
> for several weeks.
>
> I repeat over and over like a parrot that the nature of space and time
> MAKES us not observe the real speed of things.
>
> I talked about spatial anisochrony, it's a concept that children can
> easily understand if they think about it.
>
> The nature of space and time means that two different places in space can
> never co-exist in a present time plane that is absolute to them.
> This ashtray placed on the fireplace, and this cup placed on the table are
> three meters apart.
> They are also distant IN TIME of 10 nanoseconds.
>
> It's like that.
>
> Is it hard for you to understand this principle?
>
> If so, ask for help.
>
> Take a few cups of coffee.
>
> I beg you to believe that a kid of nine or eleven understands very well
> what I mean if he makes the simple effort to understand it, he does it in
> a few seconds.
>
> From there, when we measure a speed, ie a displacement in space (but also
> in time which is included in this space), our measurement is biased by
> this anisochrony.
>
> We will then measure a speed which is not the real speed of movement in
> this space.
>
> In everyday life, it is not important to know this, but when it comes to
> relativistic velocities, we see immediately that the quantities of
> movement will no longer follow a straight line with respect to the speed.
>
> We always have p=m.v
> because the law does not change for "another law".
>
> But you have to take the right v.
>
> It is no longer necessary to take the measurable (or observable) speed Vo,
> with an O like Oscar, but the real speed Vr with an R like Romeo.
>
> We then set Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>
> Then we set p=m.Vr
>
> It's childishly simple.
>
> A purely human problem then opens up, which is this: "We don't want
> Richard Hachel to reign over us".
>
> I am a great democrat.
>
> I admit it.
>
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 04/02/2022 à 16:49, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> 2. You say that physicists’ explanation of relativity is impenetrable,
> while tens of thousands of students have no trouble understanding it at
> all.

Ils mentent.

R.H.

Le 04/02/2022 à 16:49, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> 1. You say that simple things are impossible to do, that physicists say are
> obviously easy to do.

Ils mentent.

They lie.

Ask a doctor to clearly explain to you how it is that the apparent speed
of an object moving towards me is 4c (if its measurable speed is 0.8c).

He will tell you that it is easy.

It's true. It's easy. 0.8/(1-0.8)=4c

He will tell you that the whole world knows that Vapp= v/(1-v/c)
and it will make him laugh, it is, apparently, so simple.

Ask him what is the proper time of a cosmonaut returning to earth in this
rocket,
if the distance is 12 light years in the terrestrial frame, it will
answer you:
"9 years".

Very simple, again.

Now ask him how far away the earth is on his U-turn, as he starts at
0.8c, a comeback that will last 9 years.

On a desire to cry in front of the clarity and beauty of Hachel's
reflection.

9years / 4c = 36 ly. Space dilation.

L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)

µ=180° cosµ=-1.

It is the only one that will offer effects and clear explanations.

Others will start saying they don't have time to study this simple
question.

And if we rush them, because it's still very important to know how to
answer a very simple question, everything will quickly turn to threat and
hatred.

This has been my story on the internet for decades, and still you don't
know everything.

I speak only of my scientific reflections.

The problem of human relations is not scientific, nor intellectual, nor
moral, nor anything.

He is just navel.

"We don't want this man to rule over us".

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 04/02/2022 à 16:49, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> 2. You say that physicists’ explanation of relativity is impenetrable,
>> while tens of thousands of students have no trouble understanding it at
>> all.
>
> Ils mentent.

No, sir, they do not.

I’m sorry, but this is the reality, whether it makes you feel ill at ease
or not.

When you start claiming that tens of thousands of people each year lie
about one thing, when you claim that you are smarter than just about
everyone else, when you claim that you have an insight into a century-old
topic that no one else has had over that whole time, then this is — sadly
for you — crazy-talk behavior.

People do not pay much attention to the pronouncements and “special offers”
from crazy people, Richard.

>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 04/02/2022 à 16:49, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> 1. You say that simple things are impossible to do, that physicists say are
>> obviously easy to do.
>
> Ils mentent.
>
> They lie.
>
>

Nope, they do not. And because I am a sane person (unlike you) I do not
need to suppose that an entire class of people are in cahoots to lie about
something, even for other things that I find hard to understand.

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

Le 04/02/2022 à 23:14, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Nope, they do not. And because I am a sane person (unlike you) I do not
> need to suppose that an entire class of people are in cahoots to lie about
> something, even for other things that I find hard to understand.

All my life, I had a hard time understanding certain things.
I was often told that it came from me.
I know this defense system. Today, I find it difficult to understand why
physicists say that their description of Langevin's Voyager is better than
mine, why they make a mistake in the description of Voyageur de Tau Ceti,
why they don't understand the notion of spatial anisochrony, why they
confuse simultaneity and chronotropy, and so on for many things. The easy
solution consists in saying: if Richard Hachel does not understand all
these things, it is because he is really very stupid.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 04/02/2022 à 23:14, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Nope, they do not. And because I am a sane person (unlike you) I do not
>> need to suppose that an entire class of people are in cahoots to lie about
>> something, even for other things that I find hard to understand.
>
> All my life, I had a hard time understanding certain things.

Good.

> I was often told that it came from me.

Well, yes, of course. If you’re the one having difficulty understanding,
then it is you.

> I know this defense system. Today, I find it difficult to understand why
> physicists say that their description of Langevin's Voyager is better than
> mine,

Yes, I know you have a difficult time understanding that. It is
nevertheless true.

> The easy
> solution consists in saying: if Richard Hachel does not understand all
> these things, it is because he is really very stupid.

Yes, that’s what I said. It makes you feel stupid, and you don’t like it,
and so you decide it’s their fault and not yours.

There is a difference between being stupid and being uneducated in a
subject. You are PROFOUNDLY uneducated in special relativity, and you have
wasted 40 years remaining uneducated in the subject. You could have
corrected that easily by devoting yourself to proper studies, the same way
you did in medical school, but you chose not to. So the last 40 years have
been misspent. But you can still correct that by taking a different tack
and starting to read books. If you’d like a book recommendation, I’d be
happy to give you 3 to get started.

>
> R.H.
>

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

Op 04-feb.-2022 om 23:51 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 04/02/2022 à 23:14, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> Nope, they do not. And because I am a sane person (unlike you) I do not
>>> need to suppose that an entire class of people are in cahoots to lie about
>>> something, even for other things that I find hard to understand.
>>
>> All my life, I had a hard time understanding certain things.
>
> Good.
>
>> I was often told that it came from me.
>
> Well, yes, of course. If you’re the one having difficulty understanding,
> then it is you.
>
>> I know this defense system. Today, I find it difficult to understand why
>> physicists say that their description of Langevin's Voyager is better than
>> mine,
>
> Yes, I know you have a difficult time understanding that. It is
> nevertheless true.
>
>> The easy
>> solution consists in saying: if Richard Hachel does not understand all
>> these things, it is because he is really very stupid.
>
> Yes, that’s what I said. It makes you feel stupid, and you don’t like it,
> and so you decide it’s their fault and not yours.
>
> There is a difference between being stupid and being uneducated in a
> subject. You are PROFOUNDLY uneducated in special relativity, and you have
> wasted 40 years remaining uneducated in the subject. You could have
> corrected that easily by devoting yourself to proper studies, the same way
> you did in medical school, but you chose not to. So the last 40 years have
> been misspent. But you can still correct that by taking a different tack
> and starting to read books. If you’d like a book recommendation, I’d be
> happy to give you 3 to get started.

I don't think it is a matter of choice. Anyone who spends
40 years on something while remaining entirely ignorant on
the subject, and without learning anything, cannot be anything
but profoundly stupid. That's almost by definition.
No book in the world will help.

Dirk Vdm

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:41:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> if Richard Hachel does not understand all
> these things, it is because he is really very stupid.
>
The first truth that you ever posted

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 03/02/2022 à 22:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> During our last exchanges on the thread "the traveler of Tau Ceti", I
>>> said that between me and the relativistic physicists, that is to say
>>> between my concepts and theirs, there was necessarily an error, […]
>> Yes, the error is yours, and that produces wrong results.
>
> The problem is not there.

Yes it is.

> The problem is that SR has become a religion, even if things don't fit.

Not at all. Things do fit (experimental results fit the predictions of the
theory), but you do not understand the theory nor do you know the
experiments and the results. Or if you know them, your hubris from your
ignorance prevents you from accepting them.

You lack a basic understanding of geometry and linear algebra, let alone
physics and logic, which is why your conclusions are all wrong.

> We can no longer argue with religious fanatics.

Which is why I won’t argue with you fanatic anymore, but am just telling you
where and how you are wrong.

PointedEars
--
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
of the entire tapestry.”
—Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

On Saturday, 5 February 2022 at 04:45:24 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Le 03/02/2022 à 22:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> >> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>> During our last exchanges on the thread "the traveler of Tau Ceti", I
> >>> said that between me and the relativistic physicists, that is to say
> >>> between my concepts and theirs, there was necessarily an error, […]
> >> Yes, the error is yours, and that produces wrong results.
> >
> > The problem is not there.
> Yes it is.
> > The problem is that SR has become a religion, even if things don't fit.
> Not at all. Things do fit (experimental results fit the predictions of the
> theory),

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.