Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
>>>>> they aren't true.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
>>>>> misunderstandings.
>>>> No, it does not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
>>>> subject.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
>>> Others will fail.
>>>
>> Nah.
>
> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
> crank will understand that as well as you?
>

Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
the internet. But you have lots of excuses.

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

On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
> >>>>> they aren't true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
> >>>>> misunderstandings.
> >>>> No, it does not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
> >>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
> >>>> subject.
> >>>
> >>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
> >>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
> >>> Others will fail.
> >>>
> >> Nah.
> >
> > Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
> > that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
> > you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
> > really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
> > crank will understand that as well as you?
> >
> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing

Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
it to ordinary mortal worms.

Le 08/02/2022 à 00:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 07/02/2022 à 23:28, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 07/02/2022 à 21:43, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>>> a = 10m/s² and d = 12 ly
>>
>> Good.
>>>
>>> If you are accelerating all the time, and
>>> pass Tau Ceti at the high speed v, then:
>>>
>>> Proper time Tr = (c/a)arcosh(ad/c²+1) = 3.14 year
>>
>> Wrong answer.
>>
>>
>> Tr = 4 years and 284 days.
>>
>>> Speed rel. Tau Ceti: v = c⋅tanh(a⋅Tr/c) = 0.9973c
>>
>> Wrong answer.
>>
>> Vo= 0.98076c
>>
>> Vr= 5.0245c
>>
>> g'=g.[1+Vr²/c²]^(-3/2)=0.0744m/s²
>>
>>> Earth time t = (c/a)sinh(a⋅Tr/c) = 12.93 year
>>
>> Yes. Good answer 12 years and 333 jours.
>>
>>> If you are turning the rocket around when halfway so that
>>> you are stationary when you arrive Tau Ceti, then:
>>
>>> Tr = 2(c/a)arcosh(ad/2c²+1) = 5.06 year
>>
>> The idea is not stupid, but the calculation is probably wrong (since Beaz does
>> not know how to practice in real speed).
>> I'm going to calculate that (easy), and I'll tell you that later.
>>
>> Dans l'attente, je vous remercie grandement pour votre réponse.
>>
>> R.H.
>
> If you are turning the rocket around when haftway so that you are stationnary
> when you arrive Tau Ceti: then :
>
> Tr(with around) = √2 Tr (since around).
>
> Tr (total) = six years and 277 days.
>
> R.H.

Good.
We have now discovered the solution for Tr, in the case of a change in the
mid-stroke acceleration from +g to -g.

This problem had been mentioned by Paul.

But we have not spoken of the time which will be noted by the terrestrial
observer for this new journey with phase of progressive deceleration.

It is very easy to calculate.

I'll let you do it, and if no one can do it quickly, I'll give the result
myself.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Cs4BhMSM8a7_yYRmiN0vAwuC6bk@jntp>
R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
>>>>>>> they aren't true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
>>>>>>> misunderstandings.
>>>>>> No, it does not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
>>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
>>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
>>>>> Others will fail.
>>>>>
>>>> Nah.
>>>
>>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
>>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
>>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
>>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
>>> crank will understand that as well as you?
>>>
>> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
>
> Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
> the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
> ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
> it to ordinary mortal worms.
>

Really, Woz, you’d be able to improve your weaknesses with language and
logic if you only made different choices about what you read. I do
recommend you read some good textbooks on the subject and stop making silly
excuses.

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

On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 15:17:11 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
> >>>>>>> they aren't true.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
> >>>>>>> misunderstandings.
> >>>>>> No, it does not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
> >>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
> >>>>>> subject.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
> >>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
> >>>>> Others will fail.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Nah.
> >>>
> >>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
> >>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
> >>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
> >>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
> >>> crank will understand that as well as you?
> >>>
> >> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
> >
> > Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
> > the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
> > ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
> > it to ordinary mortal worms.
> >
> Really, Woz, you’d be able to improve your weaknesses with language and

and realize that your idiot guru couldn't and didn't write what
he wrote. Sure.

On 2/10/2022 8:27 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
>>>>>>> they aren't true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
>>>>>>> misunderstandings.
>>>>>> No, it does not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
>>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
>>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
>>>>> Others will fail.
>>>>>
>>>> Nah.
>>>
>>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
>>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
>>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
>>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
>>> crank will understand that as well as you?
>>>
>> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
>> [themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
>> textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
>> the internet. But you have lots of excuses. ]

>
> Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
> the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
> ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
> it to ordinary mortal worms.
>
He's right, janitor. All you're doing is snipping replies to a
soundbite, taking the soundbite out of context and replying with nonsense.

On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 16:36:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/10/2022 8:27 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
> >>>>>>> they aren't true.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
> >>>>>>> misunderstandings.
> >>>>>> No, it does not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
> >>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
> >>>>>> subject.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
> >>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
> >>>>> Others will fail.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Nah.
> >>>
> >>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
> >>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
> >>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
> >>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
> >>> crank will understand that as well as you?
> >>>
> >> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
> >> [themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
> >> textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
> >> the internet. But you have lots of excuses. ]
> >
> > Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
> > the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
> > ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
> > it to ordinary mortal worms.
> >
> He's right, janitor. All you're doing is snipping replies to a

And how is that relativistic prediction of the measurement of
a 6-foot-tall person standing 100 m away, stupid Mike?

On 2/9/2022 2:47 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
>
> I don't find it very elegant.
>
> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't
> beautiful, they aren't true.

That's crank logic. Esp. when what's beautiful to one isn't to another.

> The future will necessarily prove me right.

That's crank logic with points on the crackpot index!
>
> No, no, space-time is not "elegant".

I find little things in SR quite elegant. Take the issue of atmospheric
muons. From the earthbound frame, time dilation explains it perfectly.
From the muon frame, time dilation of earth observer's clocks doesn't
matter, but length contraction does. When the muon frame sees the earth
as a giant pancake coming at it, and Mt. Everest is 600 meters tall, it
can easily reach sea level. Two completely different ways to see what's
going on, both resulting in the same answer at the end.

On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 16:56:01 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> I find little things in SR quite elegant. Take the issue of atmospheric
> muons. From the earthbound frame, time dilation explains it perfectly.

A pity, however, that forbidden by your Shit TAI
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 2/10/2022 8:27 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
>>>>>>>> they aren't true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
>>>>>>>> misunderstandings.
>>>>>>> No, it does not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
>>>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
>>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
>>>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
>>>>>> Others will fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nah.
>>>>
>>>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
>>>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
>>>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
>>>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
>>>> crank will understand that as well as you?
>>>>
>>> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
>>> [themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
>>> textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
>>> the internet. But you have lots of excuses. ]
>
>>
>> Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
>> the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
>> ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
>> it to ordinary mortal worms.
>>
> He's right, janitor. All you're doing is snipping replies to a
> soundbite, taking the soundbite out of context and replying with nonsense.
>

People like Woz have buffered themselves into silly positions.

He won’t know the foolishness of running with sound bites outside of the
larger context without actually seeing the context. (He just focuses on the
sound bite itself and asks whether the sound bite was actually said or not
said, regardless of mitigating context.)

And he has lots of excuses for not reading the larger context, including
the latest gem that people here are claiming he wouldn’t understand it if
he tried, so he’s not going to try.

It’s all self-protecting and self-defeating at the same time, and I just
have to sigh and giggle.

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

On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 17:33:25 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 2/10/2022 8:27 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
> >>>>>>>> they aren't true.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
> >>>>>>>> misunderstandings.
> >>>>>>> No, it does not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
> >>>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
> >>>>>>> subject.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
> >>>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
> >>>>>> Others will fail.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Nah.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
> >>>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
> >>>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
> >>>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
> >>>> crank will understand that as well as you?
> >>>>
> >>> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
> >>> [themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
> >>> textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
> >>> the internet. But you have lots of excuses. ]
> >
> >>
> >> Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
> >> the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
> >> ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
> >> it to ordinary mortal worms.
> >>
> > He's right, janitor. All you're doing is snipping replies to a
> > soundbite, taking the soundbite out of context and replying with nonsense.
> >
> People like Woz have buffered themselves into silly positions.

People like Bod are fabricating, lying and slandering.
Well, that's what is expected from fanatic morons, of
course.

> And he has lots of excuses for not reading the larger context

People like Bod always invoke some "larger context"
allegedly justifying their competely idiotic, completely
baseless and inconsistent jabbering.

On 2/10/2022 11:33 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>> On 2/10/2022 8:27 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
>>>>>>>>> they aren't true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings.
>>>>>>>> No, it does not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
>>>>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
>>>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
>>>>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
>>>>>>> Others will fail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
>>>>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
>>>>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
>>>>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
>>>>> crank will understand that as well as you?
>>>>>
>>>> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
>>>> [themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
>>>> textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
>>>> the internet. But you have lots of excuses. ]
>>
>>>
>>> Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
>>> the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
>>> ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
>>> it to ordinary mortal worms.
>>>
>> He's right, janitor. All you're doing is snipping replies to a
>> soundbite, taking the soundbite out of context and replying with nonsense.
>>
>
> People like Woz have buffered themselves into silly positions.

I see that a lot with cranks here.
>
> He won’t know the foolishness of running with sound bites outside of the
> larger context without actually seeing the context. (He just focuses on the
> sound bite itself and asks whether the sound bite was actually said or not
> said, regardless of mitigating context.)
>
> And he has lots of excuses for not reading the larger context, including
> the latest gem that people here are claiming he wouldn’t understand it if
> he tried, so he’s not going to try.

By snipping until he has an out of context soundbite he doesn't have to
make excuses.
>
> It’s all self-protecting and self-defeating at the same time, and I just
> have to sigh and giggle.
>
Sad, but entertainment for myself (and a few others).

Le 10/02/2022 à 16:55, Michael Moroney a écrit :

>> No, no, space-time is not "elegant".
>
> I find little things in SR quite elegant. Take the issue of atmospheric
> muons. From the earthbound frame, time dilation explains it perfectly.

Yes, me too.

To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

Without Minkowski space-time.

And sometimes better.

R.H.

On 2/10/2022 10:43 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 16:36:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 2/10/2022 8:27 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
>>>>>>>>> they aren't true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings.
>>>>>>>> No, it does not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
>>>>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
>>>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
>>>>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
>>>>>>> Others will fail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
>>>>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
>>>>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
>>>>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
>>>>> crank will understand that as well as you?
>>>>>
>>>> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
>>>> [themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
>>>> textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
>>>> the internet. But you have lots of excuses. ]
>>>
>>> Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
>>> the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
>>> ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
>>> it to ordinary mortal worms.
>>>
>> He's right, janitor. All you're doing is snipping replies to a
>
> And how is that relativistic prediction of the measurement of
> a 6-foot-tall person standing 100 m away, stupid Mike?
>
Again, I'll explain it once you learn how a transit works.
And when (if) you ever do, you won't need my explanation.

On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 07:32:37 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/10/2022 10:43 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 16:36:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 2/10/2022 8:27 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
> >>>>>>>>> they aren't true.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
> >>>>>>>>> misunderstandings.
> >>>>>>>> No, it does not.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
> >>>>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
> >>>>>>>> subject.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
> >>>>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
> >>>>>>> Others will fail.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nah.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
> >>>>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
> >>>>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
> >>>>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
> >>>>> crank will understand that as well as you?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
> >>>> [themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
> >>>> textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
> >>>> the internet. But you have lots of excuses. ]
> >>>
> >>> Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
> >>> the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
> >>> ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
> >>> it to ordinary mortal worms.
> >>>
> >> He's right, janitor. All you're doing is snipping replies to a
> >
> > And how is that relativistic prediction of the measurement of
> > a 6-foot-tall person standing 100 m away, stupid Mike?
> >
> Again, I'll explain it once you learn how a transit works.
> And when (if) you ever do, you won't need my explanation.

I'm asking you for a number, not for an explaination.
Why would I need any explaination from such an idiot,
stupid Mike?

On 2/11/2022 2:09 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 07:32:37 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 2/10/2022 10:43 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 16:36:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/2022 8:27 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
>>>>>>>>>>> they aren't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings.
>>>>>>>>>> No, it does not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
>>>>>>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
>>>>>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
>>>>>>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
>>>>>>>>> Others will fail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nah.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
>>>>>>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
>>>>>>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
>>>>>>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
>>>>>>> crank will understand that as well as you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
>>>>>> [themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
>>>>>> textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
>>>>>> the internet. But you have lots of excuses. ]
>>>>>
>>>>> Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
>>>>> the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
>>>>> ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
>>>>> it to ordinary mortal worms.
>>>>>
>>>> He's right, janitor. All you're doing is snipping replies to a
>>>
>>> And how is that relativistic prediction of the measurement of
>>> a 6-foot-tall person standing 100 m away, stupid Mike?
>>>
>> Again, I'll explain it once you learn how a transit works.
>> And when (if) you ever do, you won't need my explanation.
>
> I'm asking you for a number, not for an explaination.

42.

On Saturday, 12 February 2022 at 06:45:01 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 2:09 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 07:32:37 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 2/10/2022 10:43 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 16:36:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 2/10/2022 8:27 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:08:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 12:40:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:27:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 07/02/2022 à 19:30, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Spacetime diagrams are elegant
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't find it very elegant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think beauty is the splendor of truth, and if patterns aren't beautiful,
> >>>>>>>>>>> they aren't true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I recall that Minkowski's space-time leads to falsehoods and
> >>>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings.
> >>>>>>>>>> No, it does not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do not forget that relativistic physicists speak of "time-gap"
> >>>>>>>>>> I’ll reiterate that you have not used relativity textbooks to learn the
> >>>>>>>>>> subject.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be hopeless? Only poor idiot woodworker
> >>>>>>>>> is smart enough to know what is REALLY written there.
> >>>>>>>>> Others will fail.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nah.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure! When your idiot guru writes plainly and directly,
> >>>>>>> that time is the number indicated by his clock - well,
> >>>>>>> you are smart enough to know that he can't and he doesn't
> >>>>>>> really mean that at all; do you think that any of antirelativistic
> >>>>>>> crank will understand that as well as you?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, see, this is some of your language and logic weaknesses showing
> >>>>>> [themselves — taking a soundbite and running with it. It’s why reading
> >>>>>> textbooks in full is more useful than lightweight sound bite surfing from
> >>>>>> the internet. But you have lots of excuses. ]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Showing that reading your Shitty books is only for
> >>>>> the enlightened ones like you, Bod. Only the enlightened
> >>>>> ones are worthy, and you should stop recommending
> >>>>> it to ordinary mortal worms.
> >>>>>
> >>>> He's right, janitor. All you're doing is snipping replies to a
> >>>
> >>> And how is that relativistic prediction of the measurement of
> >>> a 6-foot-tall person standing 100 m away, stupid Mike?
> >>>
> >> Again, I'll explain it once you learn how a transit works.
> >> And when (if) you ever do, you won't need my explanation.
> >
> > I'm asking you for a number, not for an explaination.
> 42.

42 feet?

Le 07/02/2022 à 21:43, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> a = 10m/s² and d = 12 ly
>
> If you are accelerating all the time, and
> pass Tau Ceti at the high speed v, then:
>
> Proper time Tr = (c/a)arcosh(ad/c²+1) = 3.14 year

No.

4 years and 284 days.

> Earth time t = (c/a)sinh(a⋅Tr/c) = 12.93 year

Yes.

T=(x.c).sqrt(1+2c²/gx) = 12.93 ~ (12 years and 338 days)

>
> Speed rel. Tau Ceti: v = c⋅tanh(a⋅Tr/c) = 0.9973c

No.

v=0.98076c
>
>
> If you are turning the rocket around when halfway so that
> you are stationary when you arrive Tau Ceti, then:
>
> Tr = 2(c/a)arcosh(ad/2c²+1) = 5.06 year

And To ? ? ?

No. If rocket around halfway (-10m/s²) :

Tr= 6 years and 277 days.

To= 13 years and 284 days.

R.H.

Le 17/02/2022 à 01:43, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 07/02/2022 à 21:43, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=V6pPOyI3brESSXa8ec7FlhHknMs@jntp>

>
>> a = 10m/s² and d = 12 ly
>>
>> If you are accelerating all the time, and
>> pass Tau Ceti at the high speed v, then:
>>
>> Proper time Tr = (c/a)arcosh(ad/c²+1) = 3.14 year
>
> No.
>
> 4 years and 284 days.
>
>> Earth time t = (c/a)sinh(a⋅Tr/c) = 12.93 year
>
> Yes.
>
> T=(x.c).sqrt(1+2c²/gx) = 12.93 ~ (12 years and 338 days)
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Speed rel. Tau Ceti: v = c⋅tanh(a⋅Tr/c) = 0.9973c
>
> No.
>
> v=0.98076c
>>
>>
>> If you are turning the rocket around when halfway so that
>> you are stationary when you arrive Tau Ceti, then:
>>
>> Tr = 2(c/a)arcosh(ad/2c²+1) = 5.06 year
>
> And To ? ? ?
>
> No. If rocket around halfway (-10m/s²) :
>
> Tr= 6 years and 277 days.
>
> To= 13 years and 284 days.
>
> R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?V6pPOyI3brESSXa8ec7FlhHknMs@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.

Le 07/02/2022 à 21:43, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=j1duJUfk5wtGl9Mx1I8-ok6nhpw@jntp>

> a = 10m/s² and d = 12 ly
>
> If you are accelerating all the time, and
> pass Tau Ceti at the high speed v, then:
>
> Proper time Tr = (c/a)arcosh(ad/c²+1) = 3.14 year

No.

4 years and 284 days.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?j1duJUfk5wtGl9Mx1I8-ok6nhpw@jntp/Data.Media:1>

> Earth time t = (c/a)sinh(a⋅Tr/c) = 12.93 year

Yes.

T=(x.c).sqrt(1+2c²/gx) = 12.93 ~ (12 years and 338 days)

>
> Speed rel. Tau Ceti: v = c⋅tanh(a⋅Tr/c) = 0.9973c

No.

v=0.98076c
>
>
> If you are turning the rocket around when halfway so that
> you are stationary when you arrive Tau Ceti, then:
>
> Tr = 2(c/a)arcosh(ad/2c²+1) = 5.06 year

And To ? ? ?

No. If rocket around halfway (-10m/s²) :

Tr= 6 years and 277 days.

To= 13 years and 284 days.

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.