To²=Tr²+D²

Pythagore.

I know it may sound unbelievable, but it's all there.
And this equation remains valid in accelerated repositories.
So is the constancy of the speed of light.
This remains constant across accelerated repositories.
A light ray will always move at c (the line of propagation taking on the
appearance of a curve on which the photon moves at c).

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> To²=Tr²+D² Pythagore.
>
> I know it may sound unbelievable, but it's all there.
> And this equation remains valid in accelerated repositories.
> So is the constancy of the speed of light.

UK Column News - 11th March 2022
https://www.bitchute.com/video/S6H6zr0rh4j7/

Mike Robinson, Patrick Henningsen and Vanessa Beeley with today's UK
Column News.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> To²=Tr²+D²
> Pythagore.

Since you do not define what To, Tr and D are, this is meaningless
Richard. Considering your previous posts it is clear that neither
To or Tr are sides' lengths of a triangle, so it is certainly not
Pythagoras' theorem.

> I know it may sound unbelievable, but it's all there.
> And this equation remains valid in accelerated repositories.

Richard, "repository" in English translate to "dépôt" in French,
the word you were looking for in "frame" (more precisely "frame
of reference".

Why are you persisting using wrong words while you were told they
are incorrect translation? Are you really that dumb?

By the way, in previous posts you weren't assuming To²=Tr²+D²
but To = Tr + D/c, your bunch of nonsense is completely inconsistent.

On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 15:30:56 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > To²=Tr²+D²
> > Pythagore.
> Since you do not define what To, Tr and D are, this is meaningless

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Le 12/03/2022 à 15:30, Python a écrit :

>> To²=Tr²+D²

> To = Tr + D/c is completely inconsistent.

Bon, Jean-Pierre, t'arrêtes tes conneries?

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.):
> Le 12/03/2022 à 15:30, Python a écrit :
>
>>> To²=Tr²+D²
>
>> To = Tr + D/c  is completely inconsistent.
>
> ... t'arrêtes tes conneries?

I'm just following your own words, btw you dishonestly
modified my post (you have no shame, Richard) which was:

>> By the way, in previous posts you weren't assuming To²=Tr²+D²
>> but To = Tr + D/c, your bunch of nonsense is completely inconsistent.

To = Tr + D/c is direct consequence of your "direct life"
inconsistent principle, you wrote it numerous times.

During the last years you've also claimed:

To=Tr/sqrt(1-Vo^2/c^2)

and

To=Tr*sqrt(1-Vo^2/c^2).

as well as:

Tr=To-Et

and (in the same post):

Tr=To+Et

(I'm not even considering the times you created new kind of sine and
cosines - rememember the "cosinus et sinus hacheliens"?).

Make up your mind, fool.

On Sunday, 13 March 2022 at 02:48:05 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.):
> > Le 12/03/2022 à 15:30, Python a écrit :
> >
> >>> To²=Tr²+D²
> >
> >> To = Tr + D/c is completely inconsistent.
> >
> > ... t'arrêtes tes conneries?
>
> I'm just following your own words, btw you dishonestly

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Le 13/03/2022 à 02:48, Python a écrit :
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.):
>> Le 12/03/2022 à 15:30, Python a écrit :
>>
>>>> To²=Tr²+D²
>>
>>> To = Tr + D/c  is completely inconsistent.
>>
>> ... t'arrêtes tes conneries?
>
> I'm just following your own words, btw you dishonestly
> modified my post (you have no shame, Richard) which was:
>
>>> By the way, in previous posts you weren't assuming To²=Tr²+D²
>>> but To = Tr + D/c, your bunch of nonsense is completely inconsistent.
>
> To = Tr + D/c is direct consequence of your "direct life"
> inconsistent principle, you wrote it numerous times.
>
> During the last years you've also claimed:
>
> To=Tr/sqrt(1-Vo^2/c^2)
>
> and
>
> To=Tr*sqrt(1-Vo^2/c^2).
>
> as well as:
>
> Tr=To-Et
>
> and (in the same post):
>
> Tr=To+Et
>
> (I'm not even considering the times you created new kind of sine and
> cosines - rememember the "cosinus et sinus hacheliens"?).
>
> Make up your mind, fool.

Le 13/03/2022 à 02:48, Python a écrit :
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.):
>> Le 12/03/2022 à 15:30, Python a écrit :
>>
>>>> To²=Tr²+D²
>>
>>> To = Tr + D/c  is completely inconsistent.
>>
>> ... t'arrêtes tes conneries?
>
> I'm just following your own words, btw you dishonestly
> modified my post (you have no shame, Richard) which was:
>
>>> By the way, in previous posts you weren't assuming To²=Tr²+D²
>>> but To = Tr + D/c, your bunch of nonsense is completely inconsistent.
>
> To = Tr + D/c is direct consequence of your "direct life"
> inconsistent principle, you wrote it numerous times.
>
> During the last years you've also claimed:
>
> To=Tr/sqrt(1-Vo^2/c^2)
>
> and
>
> To=Tr*sqrt(1-Vo^2/c^2).
>
> as well as:
>
> Tr=To-Et
>
> and (in the same post):
>
> Tr=To+Et
>
> (I'm not even considering the times you created new kind of sine and
> cosines - rememember the "cosinus et sinus hacheliens"?).
>
> Make up your mind, fool.

To²=Tr²+D²

Qu'est ce que tu veux que je te dise?

Dans les référentiels accélérés, cela conduit à deux équations que
j'ai déjà données.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?0vyGh4hgGgIPJTKMhg3m8MMyV4A@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

Le 13/03/2022 à 15:22, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 13/03/2022 à 02:48, Python a écrit :
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.):
>>> Le 12/03/2022 à 15:30, Python a écrit :
>>>
>>>>> To²=Tr²+D²
>>>
>>>> To = Tr + D/c  is completely inconsistent.
>>>
>>> ... t'arrêtes tes conneries?
>>
>> I'm just following your own words, btw you dishonestly
>> modified my post (you have no shame, Richard) which was:
>>
>>>> By the way, in previous posts you weren't assuming To²=Tr²+D²
>>>> but To = Tr + D/c, your bunch of nonsense is completely inconsistent.
>>
>> To = Tr + D/c is direct consequence of your "direct life"
>> inconsistent principle, you wrote it numerous times.
>>
>> During the last years you've also claimed:
>>
>> To=Tr/sqrt(1-Vo^2/c^2)
>>
>> and
>>
>> To=Tr*sqrt(1-Vo^2/c^2).
>>
>> as well as:
>>
>> Tr=To-Et
>>
>> and (in the same post):
>>
>> Tr=To+Et
>>
>> (I'm not even considering the times you created new kind of sine and
>> cosines - rememember the "cosinus et sinus hacheliens"?).
>>
>> Make up your mind, fool.
>
> To²=Tr²+D²
>
> Qu'est ce que tu veux que je te dise?
>
> Dans les référentiels accélérés, cela conduit à deux équations que j'ai
> déjà données.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?0vyGh4hgGgIPJTKMhg3m8MMyV4A@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> R.H.

For Jean-Pierre (who is very stupid), D is a unit of time, here.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=KsSWWT6j9nADnnaUtonBHpLjaX8@jntp>

--
"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.