Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :

In laboratories, particles move much faster than c.
A meson apparently moving at 0.9995c actually moving at 32c.
> Nope. They are MEASURED as moving at 0.9995c. Not apparent, MEASURED.

You are confusing three things: apparent velocities, observable (measured)
velocities, and real velocities.

Vapp, Vo, Vr.

I implore you to make the effort to clearly understand the things you are
talking about.

Vr is Vr.

Vo is Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

Vapp is Vo/(1+cosµVo/c)

I implore you to make the effort to understand the things you criticize
before you criticize them.

Don't wage war on me ideologically, that's silly.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>
> In laboratories, particles move much faster than c.
>
> A meson apparently moving at 0.9995c actually moving at 32c.
>
>> Nope. They are MEASURED as moving at 0.9995c. Not apparent, MEASURED.
>
> You are confusing three things: apparent velocities, observable (measured)
> velocities, and real velocities.

In physics, what is real is what is measurable. There is no other “real”
velocity or momentum or energy or field strength other than what is
measurable.

In fact, to suppose a quantity that is real but obscured from measurement
is a non-starter scientifically.

>
> Vapp, Vo, Vr.
>
> I implore you to make the effort to clearly understand the things you are
> talking about.
>
> Vr is Vr.
>
> Vo is Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
>
> Vapp is Vo/(1+cosµVo/c)
>
> I implore you to make the effort to understand the things you criticize
> before you criticize them.
>
> Don't wage war on me ideologically, that's silly.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>> This BS has roots on the cult/religion of relativity,
>
> Missed that other crank term, calling science, relativity in particular,
> a "cult" or "religion".

Minkowski's 4D spacetime belief is a religion.

R.H.

Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :

>> but the amazing thing is that NO ONE before me has explained why.
>
> So many cranks love writing exactly that...
>
> Your post measured 3 of 4 on the kook-o-meter.

Which I really don't care about.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>>> This BS has roots on the cult/religion of relativity,
>>
>> Missed that other crank term, calling science, relativity in particular,
>> a "cult" or "religion".
>
> Minkowski's 4D spacetime belief is a religion.

No sir. Religion expects belief without furnishing any evidence that would
support the belief.
Science does not do that. Physics provides plenty of evidence that supports
the belief in the model.

Now, if there is a person such as yourself who declines to look at the
evidence, declines to study the subject from teaching material, and just
wants “to think otherwise” for the pure exercise of it, then that is of
course his (foolish) choice, but that choice belongs to you and does not
reflect on the subject.

>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>
>>> but the amazing thing is that NO ONE before me has explained why.
>>
>> So many cranks love writing exactly that...
>>
>> Your post measured 3 of 4 on the kook-o-meter.
>
> Which I really don't care about.
>
> R.H.
>

No, of course not. What you care about is attention being paid to you and
your ideas.

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

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>
>>>> but the amazing thing is that NO ONE before me has explained why.
>>>
>>> So many cranks love writing exactly that...
>>>
>>> Your post measured 3 of 4 on the kook-o-meter.
>>
>> Which I really don't care about.
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> No, of course not. What you care about is attention being paid to you and
> your ideas.

Calling Hachel/Lengrand's bunch of garbage "ideas" is very indulgent,
to say the least...

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 16:08:39 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >> Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> >>
> >>>> but the amazing thing is that NO ONE before me has explained why.
> >>>
> >>> So many cranks love writing exactly that...
> >>>
> >>> Your post measured 3 of 4 on the kook-o-meter.
> >>
> >> Which I really don't care about.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> >>
> >
> > No, of course not. What you care about is attention being paid to you and
> > your ideas.
> Calling Hachel/Lengrand's bunch of garbage "ideas" is very indulgent,

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
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 01/04/2022 à 16:00, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> No sir. Religion expects belief without furnishing any evidence that would
> support the belief.
> Science does not do that. Physics provides plenty of evidence that supports
> the belief in the model.
>
> Now, if there is a person such as yourself who declines to look at the
> evidence, declines to study the subject from teaching material, and just
> wants “to think otherwise” for the pure exercise of it, then that is of
> course his (foolish) choice, but that choice belongs to you and does not
> reflect on the subject.

It's a religion, of course.

I'm not talking about the theory of relativity, but I'm talking about the
explanation given by Einstein and Minkowski.

For the rest, it is a religion, and even sometimes, a hateful and
inquisitorial religion.

The way we treat those who contradict shows that those who practice this
religion are afraid, and are not sure of themselves.

Me, I am sure of myself by two things: internal beauty and external
beauty.

Internal beauty is the logic of my equations confronted with the paradoxes
of others; external beauty is experimental proof.

I have both.

The current theory has neither, because it is faulted by both.

On paper there are inconsistencies (Langevin in apparent speeds, i.e. what
observers would see in their telescopes), and experimentally, they cannot
explain why information transfers sometimes seem to take place faster than
c (quantum effect).

Me, I can.

But it seems that I am a crank, and that I am very stupid.

R.H.

Le 01/04/2022 à 16:00, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>
>>>> but the amazing thing is that NO ONE before me has explained why.
>>>
>>> So many cranks love writing exactly that...
>>>
>>> Your post measured 3 of 4 on the kook-o-meter.
>>
>> Which I really don't care about.
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> No, of course not. What you care about is attention being paid to you and
> your ideas.

Yes, it's true.

And?

R.H.

Python <python@example.invalid> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>
>>>>> but the amazing thing is that NO ONE before me has explained why.
>>>>
>>>> So many cranks love writing exactly that...
>>>>
>>>> Your post measured 3 of 4 on the kook-o-meter.
>>>
>>> Which I really don't care about.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> No, of course not. What you care about is attention being paid to you and
>> your ideas.
>
> Calling Hachel/Lengrand's bunch of garbage "ideas" is very indulgent,
> to say the least...
>
>

True, it seems like he’s more interested in deflecting from his disinterest
in actually learning relativity from textbooks by floating new terminology,
different variables (including a number of unmeasurable ones), equations
that add no value, and generally complaining about how confusing internet
resources are.

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 01/04/2022 à 16:00, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> No sir. Religion expects belief without furnishing any evidence that would
>> support the belief.
>> Science does not do that. Physics provides plenty of evidence that supports
>> the belief in the model.
>>
>> Now, if there is a person such as yourself who declines to look at the
>> evidence, declines to study the subject from teaching material, and just
>> wants “to think otherwise” for the pure exercise of it, then that is of
>> course his (foolish) choice, but that choice belongs to you and does not
>> reflect on the subject.
>
> It's a religion, of course.
>
> I'm not talking about the theory of relativity, but I'm talking about the
> explanation given by Einstein and Minkowski.
>
> For the rest, it is a religion, and even sometimes, a hateful and
> inquisitorial religion.

No sir. Religion isn’t defined by how people outside of that practice are
treated. It is defined by what I said: expectation of belief without
support of evidence. Science doesn’t do that.

Now you can feel disenfranchised by physics. You might feel persecuted and
shunned and thought badly of by those more knowledgeable about relativity.
You feeling that way does NOT make relativity a religion. Using that word
is just propaganda inspired by your personal feelings.

>
> The way we treat those who contradict shows that those who practice this
> religion are afraid, and are not sure of themselves.
>
> Me, I am sure of myself by two things: internal beauty and external
> beauty.
>
> Internal beauty is the logic of my equations confronted with the paradoxes
> of others; external beauty is experimental proof.
>
> I have both.
>
> The current theory has neither, because it is faulted by both.

This claim is unfounded, principally because you have not learned the
theory enough to make that assessment. And that is due to your personal
choices.

It is like you staring at a fruit unknown to you, and you saying, “No, I
have not tasted one of these, but I can tell that it tastes foul. It is
neither sweet nor tangy.”

>
> On paper there are inconsistencies (Langevin in apparent speeds, i.e. what
> observers would see in their telescopes), and experimentally, they cannot
> explain why information transfers sometimes seem to take place faster than
> c (quantum effect).
>
> Me, I can.
>
> But it seems that I am a crank, and that I am very stupid.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 01/04/2022 à 16:00, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 01/04/2022 à 04:33, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>
>>>>> but the amazing thing is that NO ONE before me has explained why.
>>>>
>>>> So many cranks love writing exactly that...
>>>>
>>>> Your post measured 3 of 4 on the kook-o-meter.
>>>
>>> Which I really don't care about.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> No, of course not. What you care about is attention being paid to you and
>> your ideas.
>
> Yes, it's true.
>
> And?

And that motivation defines both you and why you have no interest in
learning relativity.

>
> R.H.
>

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

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:24:18 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:

> But it seems that I am a crank, and that I am very stupid.
>
You got this right.Do your patients know?

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:21:05 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> And that motivation defines both you and why you have no interest in learning relativity.

No, Bodkin. You don't learn relativity. That thing is impossible because the entire theory has no sense.
It's a matter of faith and wishful belief on fairy tails.

You accept and memorize it as a sacred scripture, like a religious text. Try to learn about how many people
MAKE A LIVING by using any monoteist religion, yet being utter cynical and hipocrites about believing on what they profess.
Same thing with relativity. It's a way of living, and a comfortable one. It only takes to be a fucking cretin, no matter how intelligent.

Then, you start fantasizing stupid things by using pseudo-philosophy in the same way theologians
discuss about the contents of the Talmud, the Bible or similar historical narratives for each religion
in the world.

Le 01/04/2022 à 17:37, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:24:18 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> But it seems that I am a crank, and that I am very stupid.
>>
> You got this right.Do your patients know?

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:04 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 01/04/2022 à 16:00, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> No sir. Religion expects belief without furnishing any evidence that would
> >> support the belief.
> >> Science does not do that. Physics provides plenty of evidence that supports
> >> the belief in the model.
> >>
> >> Now, if there is a person such as yourself who declines to look at the
> >> evidence, declines to study the subject from teaching material, and just
> >> wants “to think otherwise” for the pure exercise of it, then that is of
> >> course his (foolish) choice, but that choice belongs to you and does not
> >> reflect on the subject.
> >
> > It's a religion, of course.
> >
> > I'm not talking about the theory of relativity, but I'm talking about the
> > explanation given by Einstein and Minkowski.
> >
> > For the rest, it is a religion, and even sometimes, a hateful and
> > inquisitorial religion.
> No sir. Religion isn’t defined by how people outside of that practice are
> treated. It is defined by what I said: expectation of belief without
> support of evidence. Science doesn’t do that.

"Science doesn’t do that."; a perfect example of
expectation of belief without support of evidence.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:21:05 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> And that motivation defines both you and why you have no interest in learning relativity.
>
> No, Bodkin. You don't learn relativity. That thing is impossible because
> the entire theory has no sense.

I do not see it as impossible, because I have learned it and it makes sense
to me.

You say this is impossible, that you are smarter than me, and that if you
cannot make sense of it, then it is impossible for anyone to make sense of
it.

To me, there’s a very simple reason why it makes sense to me and doesn’t
make sense to you. I learned it by studying textbooks, and you refused to
learn anything beyond the classical physics you learned when you were young
and needed it for your career.

> It's a matter of faith and wishful belief on fairy tails.
>
> You accept and memorize it as a sacred scripture, like a religious text.

No, I really do understand it. You say I am lying, that everyone who claims
to understand it is lying. You cannot bear that it would be true that many
understand it and you don’t, and so you insist that thousands of people are
making false claims about understanding relativity. This is of course
insanity.

> Try to learn about how many people
> MAKE A LIVING by using any monoteist religion, yet being utter cynical
> and hipocrites about believing on what they profess.
> Same thing with relativity. It's a way of living, and a comfortable one.
> It only takes to be a fucking cretin, no matter how intelligent.
>
> Then, you start fantasizing stupid things by using pseudo-philosophy in
> the same way theologians
> discuss about the contents of the Talmud, the Bible or similar historical
> narratives for each religion
> in the world.
>
>

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

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 1:32:51 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:21:05 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> And that motivation defines both you and why you have no interest in learning relativity.
> >
> > No, Bodkin. You don't learn relativity. That thing is impossible because
> > the entire theory has no sense.
> I do not see it as impossible, because I have learned it and it makes sense
> to me.
>
> You say this is impossible, that you are smarter than me, and that if you
> cannot make sense of it, then it is impossible for anyone to make sense of
> it.
>
> To me, there’s a very simple reason why it makes sense to me and doesn’t
> make sense to you. I learned it by studying textbooks, and you refused to
> learn anything beyond the classical physics you learned when you were young
> and needed it for your career.
> > It's a matter of faith and wishful belief on fairy tails.
> >
> > You accept and memorize it as a sacred scripture, like a religious text..
> No, I really do understand it. You say I am lying, that everyone who claims
> to understand it is lying. You cannot bear that it would be true that many
> understand it and you don’t, and so you insist that thousands of people are
> making false claims about understanding relativity. This is of course
> insanity.
> > Try to learn about how many people
> > MAKE A LIVING by using any monoteist religion, yet being utter cynical
> > and hipocrites about believing on what they profess.
> > Same thing with relativity. It's a way of living, and a comfortable one..
> > It only takes to be a fucking cretin, no matter how intelligent.
> >
> > Then, you start fantasizing stupid things by using pseudo-philosophy in
> > the same way theologians
> > discuss about the contents of the Talmud, the Bible or similar historical
> > narratives for each religion
> > in the world.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Don't be stupid!

I understand the mathematics of relativity (both), but MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS!

Get it into your wood chips filled head. Trying to force a physical meaning of the outcomes of mathematical developments is STUPID.

In the same way, then it should be accepted the outcomes of 10 years of development of electrons orbiting around nucleus (1915-1925),
to which Sommerfeld and Born devoted their entire time in such period, even writing voluminous books (Born, 1925).

But Born wisely dropped all his research in less than a year, to jump on the bandwagon of probabilistic interpretation of QM as proposed
by Schrodinger, letting behind his protegee Heisenberg.

Opportunistic movement of a cretin that spent the rest of his life begging for a Nobel prize (a consolation prize). Born found a way to
make Schrodinger's theory untesteable by resorting to statistical interpretation of wave mechanics. But it was only MATHEMATICS!

How come the cretins of the QM movement develop such amount of crap, because some results fit with some experiments, approximately?

This is what theoretical physics is: an endless tirade of fairy tails, with writers finding shelter in the impossibility to test theories in
the lab.

And all these imbeciles followed the way that Einstein paved with his utter-crap of relativity.

The mindset of developers was: Prove me wrong, and if you do, suit me. I'm unaccountable.

And this spirit of the farsical meta-physics has been perfected on these days, as any given imbecile can claim whatever they want,
as long it CAN'T BE PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY.

There goes Alan Guth and his inflation theory, which mathematically allowed to create the universe in 10E-32 seconds.

And all these cretins had/have a better level of living than you, woodworker. And you, stupidly, support all of these parasites of science.

Because MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS.

Applied mathematics in REAL PHYSICS, sustained by honest physicists and engineers, have made possible the world that you enjoy today.

Parasite relativists contributed with NOTHING of value in 110 years.

Now, start crying foul as you usually do, asshole.

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:21:05 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> And that motivation defines both you and why you have no interest in learning relativity.
>>
>> No, Bodkin. You don't learn relativity. That thing is impossible because
>> the entire theory has no sense.
>
> I do not see it as impossible, because I have learned it and it makes sense
> to me.
>
> You say this is impossible, that you are smarter than me, and that if you
> cannot make sense of it, then it is impossible for anyone to make sense of
> it.

This is called "Hachel syndrome" in the French scientific literature
about dementia.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 1:32:51 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:21:05 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> And that motivation defines both you and why you have no interest in
>>>> learning relativity.
>>>
>>> No, Bodkin. You don't learn relativity. That thing is impossible because
>>> the entire theory has no sense.
>> I do not see it as impossible, because I have learned it and it makes sense
>> to me.
>>
>> You say this is impossible, that you are smarter than me, and that if you
>> cannot make sense of it, then it is impossible for anyone to make sense of
>> it.
>>
>> To me, there’s a very simple reason why it makes sense to me and doesn’t
>> make sense to you. I learned it by studying textbooks, and you refused to
>> learn anything beyond the classical physics you learned when you were young
>> and needed it for your career.
>>> It's a matter of faith and wishful belief on fairy tails.
>>>
>>> You accept and memorize it as a sacred scripture, like a religious text.
>> No, I really do understand it. You say I am lying, that everyone who claims
>> to understand it is lying. You cannot bear that it would be true that many
>> understand it and you don’t, and so you insist that thousands of people are
>> making false claims about understanding relativity. This is of course
>> insanity.
>>> Try to learn about how many people
>>> MAKE A LIVING by using any monoteist religion, yet being utter cynical
>>> and hipocrites about believing on what they profess.
>>> Same thing with relativity. It's a way of living, and a comfortable one.
>>> It only takes to be a fucking cretin, no matter how intelligent.
>>>
>>> Then, you start fantasizing stupid things by using pseudo-philosophy in
>>> the same way theologians
>>> discuss about the contents of the Talmud, the Bible or similar historical
>>> narratives for each religion
>>> in the world.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Don't be stupid!
>
> I understand the mathematics of relativity (both), but MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS!

The physics of relativity isn’t hard to understand, either.

I’m not sure what you find confounding about the physics of relativity.
What I do know is that just because you don’t understand the physics of
relativity, doesn’t mean that others cannot.

>
> Get it into your wood chips filled head. Trying to force a physical
> meaning of the outcomes of mathematical developments is STUPID.
>
> In the same way, then it should be accepted the outcomes of 10 years of
> development of electrons orbiting around nucleus (1915-1925),
> to which Sommerfeld and Born devoted their entire time in such period,
> even writing voluminous books (Born, 1925).
>
> But Born wisely dropped all his research in less than a year, to jump on
> the bandwagon of probabilistic interpretation of QM as proposed
> by Schrodinger, letting behind his protegee Heisenberg.
>
> Opportunistic movement of a cretin that spent the rest of his life
> begging for a Nobel prize (a consolation prize). Born found a way to
> make Schrodinger's theory untesteable by resorting to statistical
> interpretation of wave mechanics. But it was only MATHEMATICS!
>
> How come the cretins of the QM movement develop such amount of crap,
> because some results fit with some experiments, approximately?
>
> This is what theoretical physics is: an endless tirade of fairy tails,
> with writers finding shelter in the impossibility to test theories in
> the lab.
>
> And all these imbeciles followed the way that Einstein paved with his
> utter-crap of relativity.
>
> The mindset of developers was: Prove me wrong, and if you do, suit me. I'm unaccountable.
>
> And this spirit of the farsical meta-physics has been perfected on these
> days, as any given imbecile can claim whatever they want,
> as long it CAN'T BE PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY.
>
> There goes Alan Guth and his inflation theory, which mathematically
> allowed to create the universe in 10E-32 seconds.
>
> And all these cretins had/have a better level of living than you,
> woodworker. And you, stupidly, support all of these parasites of science.
>
> Because MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS.
>
> Applied mathematics in REAL PHYSICS, sustained by honest physicists and
> engineers, have made possible the world that you enjoy today.
>
> Parasite relativists contributed with NOTHING of value in 110 years.
>
> Now, start crying foul as you usually do, asshole.
>
>

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

Python <python@example.invalid> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:21:05 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> And that motivation defines both you and why you have no interest in
>>>> learning relativity.
>>>
>>> No, Bodkin. You don't learn relativity. That thing is impossible because
>>> the entire theory has no sense.
>>
>> I do not see it as impossible, because I have learned it and it makes sense
>> to me.
>>
>> You say this is impossible, that you are smarter than me, and that if you
>> cannot make sense of it, then it is impossible for anyone to make sense of
>> it.
>
> This is called "Hachel syndrome" in the French scientific literature
> about dementia.
>

And for a minute, I thought it was Richard Hachel that had made that rant,
only to find out it was Richard Hertz. Which only means that there are two
egomaniacs who haven’t bothered to learn the subject but have declared that
it is impossible for anyone to understand.

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

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 19:06:02 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:21:05 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> And that motivation defines both you and why you have no interest in learning relativity.
> >>
> >> No, Bodkin. You don't learn relativity. That thing is impossible because
> >> the entire theory has no sense.
> >
> > I do not see it as impossible, because I have learned it and it makes sense
> > to me.
> >
> > You say this is impossible, that you are smarter than me, and that if you
> > cannot make sense of it, then it is impossible for anyone to make sense of
> > it.
> This is called "Hachel syndrome" in the French scientific literature

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
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?

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 19:10:07 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> The physics of relativity isn’t hard to understand, either.

Sure; some morons waving their arms and screaming
"We're FORCED!!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!!" Nothing
complicated.

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:10:08 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
> And for a minute, I thought it was Richard Hachel that had made that rant,
> only to find out it was Richard Hertz. Which only means that there are two
> egomaniacs who haven’t bothered to learn the subject but have declared that
> it is impossible for anyone to understand.

Synonyms of understand: comprehend, grasp, take in, perceive, make out, puzzle out, recognize, keep up with, get to know,
get to the bottom of, penetrate, interpret, decipher, see the light about, envisage.

I bet that "penetrate" was the mechanism by which relativity entered into your fucking mind, asshole beyond redemption!

I don't discard other forcefull mechanisms by which you finally "saw the light about" it, including physical means while attending
mass on the church of relativity nearest your place. Kind of ritual or something.