Two events are simultaneous when its TAI/GPS/UTC time
coordinate is equal. That's how things are in the world
we inhabit. You can scream "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!" as much
as you want, nothing is going to change.

Le 05/04/2022 à 14:33, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> Two events are simultaneous when its TAI/GPS/UTC time
> coordinate is equal. That's how things are in the world
> we inhabit. You can scream "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!" as much
> as you want, nothing is going to change.

This definition is lame, because it does not take into account the
universal anisochrony.

The primum movens of the theory of relativity is the relativity of
simultaneity according to POSITION.

Unfortunately, relativists, who understood something like this,
misunderstood it and say "according to speed"!

However, it is not the speed which is in question, but the position.

Speed ​​does not play on the notion of simultaneity but on the notion
of chronotropy.

I come back to what I was saying: you cannot ABSOLUTELY tune two watches
placed in two different places (one on the table, the other on the
cupboard).

If we tune one to the other, which is doable, because the moment of
"present" of one corresponds well to a moment of the present of the other,
we will realize (and this this is the terrible disappointment of
relativists who do not understand what they are causing) that the
symmetrical is no longer true.

This is true in Newton and Einstein.

This is no longer true with Hachel.

But Hachel, he's mean.

Very mean.

LOL.

R.H.

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:47:33 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 05/04/2022 à 14:33, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > Two events are simultaneous when its TAI/GPS/UTC time
> > coordinate is equal. That's how things are in the world
> > we inhabit. You can scream "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!" as much
> > as you want, nothing is going to change.
> This definition is lame, because it does not take into account the
> universal anisochrony.

And that's because the sane people responsible for
serious clocks and serious timekeeping systems
are fucking your universal anisochrony. You can
scream "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!" as much as you want,
nothing is going to change.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D) wrote:
....
> I come back to what I was saying: you cannot ABSOLUTELY tune two watches
> placed in two different places (one on the table, the other on the
> cupboard).
>
> If we tune one to the other, which is doable, because the moment of
> "present" of one corresponds well to a moment of the present of the
> other, we will realize (and this this is the terrible disappointment of
> relativists who do not understand what they are causing) that the
> symmetrical is no longer true.

It is provable that you claims are WRONG starting with very basic
assumptions you have said to accept. Actually there are three way
to define what you claim to be impossible.

The first way is to assume speed of light to be invariant for a round
trip. This is Poincaré-Einstein procedure. Poincaré, that you pretend
to praise, expressed it first. Then Einstein did express it (in 1905
paper) splitting the two basic assumptions in two parts: an experimental
one about light, another one as a convention about clocks.

Later it became clear than you could put light off the scene by only
assuming that at least one Galilean frame exists.

Another procedure is to use slow clock transport.

ALL three can be PROVEN equivalent AND consistent under a small set
of assumption that YOU admitted being reasonable.

All of this is documented in myriads of books (you didn't read) and
courses on SR (you refused to watch).

You are contradicting yourself, Richard, and this has been pointed
out to you several times during the last 30 years or so. So you're
either an imbecile, an hypocrite or a fool (all of this actually).

So could you find a place to shut your mouth and die quietly? You
are a disgrace to Humanity.

Le 06/04/2022 à 23:56, Python a écrit :
> It is provable that you claims are WRONG starting with very basic
> assumptions you have said to accept. Actually there are three way
> to define what you claim to be impossible.
>
> The first way is to assume speed of light to be invariant for a round
> trip. This is Poincaré-Einstein procedure. Poincaré, that you pretend
> to praise, expressed it first. Then Einstein did express it (in 1905
> paper) splitting the two basic assumptions in two parts: an experimental
> one about light, another one as a convention about clocks.
>
> Later it became clear than you could put light off the scene by only
> assuming that at least one Galilean frame exists.
>
> Another procedure is to use slow clock transport.
>
> ALL three can be PROVEN equivalent AND consistent under a small set
> of assumption that YOU admitted being reasonable.
>
> All of this is documented in myriads of books (you didn't read) and
> courses on SR (you refused to watch).
>
> You are contradicting yourself, Richard, and this has been pointed
> out to you several times during the last 30 years or so. So you're
> either an imbecile, an hypocrite or a fool (all of this actually).
>
> So could you find a place to shut your mouth and die quietly? You
> are a disgrace to Humanity.

No, no, I am not a disgrace to humanity.

Of course not.

I am simply something brilliant and very rare, that is to say an honest
man.

I cannot accept the synchronization procedure of the relativists because
it is not scientific but simply an a priori which would like the universe
to be isochronous.

I have obviously understood very well, for decades that I have been
talking about it, how Einstein's synchronization procedure worked.

For him, everything is very simple: we ask ourselves no questions about
the nature of space and time and we admit a priori that the universe is
isochronous.

It is then easy (and I would obviously agree if it were) to slowly move
two previously tuned watches apart, or to send signals from an equidistant
position to tune the watches.

But the problem is not TECHNICAL or MATHEMATICAL.

It is simply PHYSICAL.

The universe is NOT isochronous.

In the best case, this watch placed on the table and this watch placed on
the cupboard and three meters apart, will always consider that the other
watch is lagging behind it by 10 nanoseconds.

It is a physical structure of space and time.

This is called universal anisochrony.

It also means that the notion of an "absolute present time" is an abstract
idea.

Like the notion of flat earth, pink unicorn or round square.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand:
> Le 06/04/2022 à 23:56, Python a écrit :
>> It is provable that you claims are WRONG starting with very basic
>> assumptions you have said to accept. Actually there are three way
>> to define what you claim to be impossible.
>>
>> The first way is to assume speed of light to be invariant for a round
>> trip. This is Poincaré-Einstein procedure. Poincaré, that you pretend
>> to praise, expressed it first. Then Einstein did express it (in 1905
>> paper) splitting the two basic assumptions in two parts: an experimental
>> one about light, another one as a convention about clocks.
>>
>> Later it became clear than you could put light off the scene by only
>> assuming that at least one Galilean frame exists.
>>
>> Another procedure is to use slow clock transport.
>>
>> ALL three can be PROVEN equivalent AND consistent under a small set
>> of assumption that YOU admitted being reasonable.
>>
>> All of this is documented in myriads of books (you didn't read) and
>> courses on SR (you refused to watch).
>>
>> You are contradicting yourself, Richard, and this has been pointed
>> out to you several times during the last 30 years or so. So you're
>> either an imbecile, an hypocrite or a fool (all of this actually).
>>
>> So could you find a place to shut your mouth and die quietly? You
>> are a disgrace to Humanity.

Note that you didn't address a single FACT I've stated above.

> No, no, I am not a disgrace to humanity.

You are. Not because of your stupidity by the way, even if you
are stupid. But because you are a liar, because your make up
stuff and persist to do to so after you've been caught, because
of you arrogance and you lack of integrity Richard.

> Of course not.

"of course"? Lol. You are not in position to judge this, Richard.
This is a sin.

> I am simply something brilliant and very rare, that is to say an honest
> man.

You are 500% the opposite of an "honest man".

> I cannot accept the synchronization procedure of the relativists because
> it is not scientific but simply an a priori which would like the
> universe to be isochronous.

If you had seriously studied the issue you would know that is not
a prejudice of any kind, especially since Poincaré, Einstein and
other REALLY consider this question seriously and carefully. What
you've NEVER done.

BTW, "Universe is isochronoous" is a meaningless expression, as you
would know if you had think about it.

> I have obviously understood very well, for decades that I have been
> talking about it, how Einstein's synchronization procedure worked.

You have demonstrated the exact opposite, you do not understand AT ALL
how the time coordinate is constructed in physics.

Reminder:
>> From:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/ySm43D5qkiIJ
>>
>> Hachel (26 of April 2007), translated in English, wrote
>>
>> I come to wonder if Einstein actually starts from any kind of
>> synchronization convention.
>>
>> He assumes that the speed of light is invariant by change of
>> frame of reference, but he ABSOLUTELY does not talk about how he
>> synchronizes the watches present in each inertial frame of
>> reference.
>> [...]
>> He seems to accept straight away that in an inertial frame
>> of reference, all fixed watches indicate the same time, wherever
>> they sit.
>> [...]
>> But he doesn't talk about which observer (implicitly, it's
>> all the points in the frame of reference).
>>
>> But all of that is false. In fact, this is not valid for any (or
>> almost) of the points of the plan given, and certainly not the
>> points O and O' where the watches are supposed to be.
>>
>> Later in the discussion here is how he reacted to a detailed
>> explanation of what part I.2 in 1905 Einstein's article actually
>> states (i.e. exactly what he claimed was "ABSOLUTELY" not there...)
>>
>> > In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> > t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B.
>>
>> ????
>>
>> Wait, Am I dreaming?
>>
>> Does this mean that Einstein states that watches are synchronized if
>> they beat at the same rate???
>>
>> Is that what you mean???
>>
>> Because the equation above, means that.
>>
>> We may try, by charity, to educate Lengrand, but, as you can see in this
>> thread that is almost 15 years old, it is likely an hopeless goal.

and it got worse and worse later in the thread.

YOU'VE NEVER SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE QUESTION. Poincaré did, Einstein
did further, other did. NOT YOU. And when you tried for a few minutes
you completely MISSED the point, failing to understand what was actually
stated by Einstein.

You missed the point. As in other fields or subject, you fail to get
the point, you take for granted any idiotic idea out of you fat ass
and stay stuck in your own shit for the rest of your miserable life.

In physics, in maths (complex numbers), in history (Berkeley vs Newton),
in all aspect of everything you've ever pretend to talk about. You are
a piece of dirt, Richard.

And when presented with books of courses, you refuse to even consider
reading or watching it. You are a stubborn imbecile Richard.

> For him, everything is very simple: we ask ourselves no questions about
> the nature of space and time and we admit a priori that the universe is
> isochronous.

This is not how it happened, quite the contrary. You are the one stuck
in idiotic, self-contradictory prejudice, a mix of stupidity and lack
of intellectual integrity. And again "isochronous" is a meaningless
word.

> It is then easy (and I would obviously agree if it were) to slowly move
> two previously tuned watches apart, or to send signals from an
> equidistant position to tune the watches.

Now you wouldn't agree, because you are a FRAUD, a dishonest man and
a psychopath.

> Like the notion of flat earth, pink unicorn or round square.

This is a false analogy. If you don't understand something because you
are dumb and do not even try because you are an arrogant stubborn
imbecile does not mean it is meaningless.

It just mean that you are an arrogant stubborn imbecile who does not
want to learn, does not want to think. You just want to brag and annoy
people.

You'll pay for that, eventually.

Le 07/04/2022 à 01:48, Python (Jean-Pierre Messager) a écrit :

> you are a psychopath.

J'adore.

LOL.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Hachel (M.D.) wrote:
....
>> you are a psychopath.
>
> J'adore.

You love to be a psychopath? Well. Another good reason
for you being forbidden to be an M.D. then.

Your fellow Lavau has been banned to be a teacher for
the same reason, he too love to be a psychopath.

Le 07/04/2022 à 01:48, Python a écrit :
> You'll pay for that, eventually.
No, no, you shouldn't threaten people, it's not good.

It's against the usenet charter.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 07/04/2022 à 01:48, Python a écrit :
>
>> You'll pay for that, eventually.
>
> No, no, you shouldn't threaten people, it's not good.
>
> It's against the usenet charter.

It is not a threat. It is a prediction.

Le 07/04/2022 à 02:20, Python a écrit :
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>> Le 07/04/2022 à 01:48, Python a écrit :
>>
>>> You'll pay for that, eventually.
>>
>> No, no, you shouldn't threaten people, it's not good.
>>
>> It's against the usenet charter.
>
> It is not a threat. It is a prediction.

Bof... les prédictions...

J'ai un arrière grand père qui est mort à Verdun en 1914.

Ben ça m'étonnerô ben qu'ça m'arriffe.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 07/04/2022 à 02:20, Python a écrit :
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>> Le 07/04/2022 à 01:48, Python a écrit :
>>>
>>>> You'll pay for that, eventually.
>>>
>>> No, no, you shouldn't threaten people, it's not good.
>>>
>>> It's against the usenet charter.
>>
>> It is not a threat. It is a prediction.
>
> Bof... les prédictions...
> J'ai un arrière grand père qui est mort à Verdun en 1914.
> Ben ça m'étonnerô ben qu'ça m'arriffe.

I didn't predict you'll die in Verdun during first world war.

BTW, you're still avoiding, ignoring and snipping sound
criticism of you "ideas". People notice, this is already
a kind of retribution for your disgusting habits, lies
and fallacies.

Le 07/04/2022 à 02:42, Python a écrit :
>>>>> You'll pay for that, eventually.
>>>>
>>>> No, no, you shouldn't threaten people, it's not good.
>>>>
>>>> It's against the usenet charter.
>>>
>>> It is not a threat. It is a prediction.
>>
>> Bof... les prédictions...
>> J'ai un arrière grand père qui est mort à Verdun en 1914.
>> Ben ça m'étonnerô ben qu'ça m'arriffe.
>
> I didn't predict you'll die in Verdun during first world war.
>
> BTW, you're still avoiding, ignoring and snipping sound
> criticism of you "ideas". People notice, this is already
> a kind of retribution for your disgusting habits, lies
> and fallacies.

No, listen, Jean-Pierre.
At this time, darling, you should be in bed. Tomorrow you won't be able to
get up.

Be reasonable.

Va faire dodo, et je passe l'éponge.

R.H.

On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 23:56:58 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D) wrote:
> ...
> > I come back to what I was saying: you cannot ABSOLUTELY tune two watches
> > placed in two different places (one on the table, the other on the
> > cupboard).
> >
> > If we tune one to the other, which is doable, because the moment of
> > "present" of one corresponds well to a moment of the present of the
> > other, we will realize (and this this is the terrible disappointment of
> > relativists who do not understand what they are causing) that the
> > symmetrical is no longer true.
> It is provable that you claims are WRONG starting with very basic

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend a wise one.
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 Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 01:20:45 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:

> I have obviously understood very well, for decades that I have been
> talking about it, how Einstein's synchronization procedure worked.

It didn't and it never will. Its requirements are ridiculous.

On 4/6/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 06/04/2022 à 23:56, Python a écrit :
>> It is provable that you claims are WRONG starting with very basic
>> assumptions you have said to accept. Actually there are three way
>> to define what you claim to be impossible.
>>
>> The first way is to assume speed of light to be invariant for a round
>> trip. This is Poincaré-Einstein procedure. Poincaré, that you pretend
>> to praise, expressed it first. Then Einstein did express it (in 1905
>> paper) splitting the two basic assumptions in two parts: an experimental
>> one about light, another one as a convention about clocks.
>>
>> Later it became clear than you could put light off the scene by only
>> assuming that at least one Galilean frame exists.
>>
>> Another procedure is to use slow clock transport.
>>
>> ALL three can be PROVEN equivalent AND consistent under a small set
>> of assumption that YOU admitted being reasonable.
>>
>> All of this is documented in myriads of books (you didn't read) and
>> courses on SR (you refused to watch).
>>
>> You are contradicting yourself, Richard, and this has been pointed
>> out to you several times during the last 30 years or so. So you're
>> either an imbecile, an hypocrite or a fool (all of this actually).
>>
>> So could you find a place to shut your mouth and die quietly? You
>> are a disgrace to Humanity.
>
> No, no, I am not a disgrace to humanity.
>
> Of course not.

You are, Mr. Lengrand. You wallow in a never-ending hatred for a man who
never harmed you in any way, with an OCD obsession for doing so. As a
doctor, you should have recognized your OCD symptoms and had them
treated, so you could do something better with your life than express
hatred to Einstein for what, 30 years now?
>
> I am simply something brilliant and very rare, that is to say an honest
> man.

NO, you are a sick man, obsessed with hating Einstein. Sorry, but
Einstein had more brilliance in one of his left pinky toe's toenail
clippings than you'll ever have.
>
> I cannot accept the synchronization procedure of the relativists

And you show yourself as a crank, daily. So you don't accept Poincaré's
synchronization procedure, because for you Poincaré is a "relativist"
(whatever that crank word really means) ?

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 08:55:19 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> And you show yourself as a crank, daily. So you don't accept Poincaré's
> synchronization procedure, because for you Poincaré is a "relativist"
> (whatever that crank word really means) ?

Sorry, stupid Mike, Poincare's procedure is worthless.
120 years means an age in telecommunication, and
Poincare was just an (quite smart, indeed) amateur
in it.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 06/04/2022 à 23:56, Python a écrit :
>> It is provable that you claims are WRONG starting with very basic
>> assumptions you have said to accept. Actually there are three way
>> to define what you claim to be impossible.
>>
>> The first way is to assume speed of light to be invariant for a round
>> trip. This is Poincaré-Einstein procedure. Poincaré, that you pretend
>> to praise, expressed it first. Then Einstein did express it (in 1905
>> paper) splitting the two basic assumptions in two parts: an experimental
>> one about light, another one as a convention about clocks.
>>
>> Later it became clear than you could put light off the scene by only
>> assuming that at least one Galilean frame exists.
>>
>> Another procedure is to use slow clock transport.
>>
>> ALL three can be PROVEN equivalent AND consistent under a small set
>> of assumption that YOU admitted being reasonable.
>>
>> All of this is documented in myriads of books (you didn't read) and
>> courses on SR (you refused to watch).
>>
>> You are contradicting yourself, Richard, and this has been pointed
>> out to you several times during the last 30 years or so. So you're
>> either an imbecile, an hypocrite or a fool (all of this actually).
>>
>> So could you find a place to shut your mouth and die quietly? You
>> are a disgrace to Humanity.
>
> No, no, I am not a disgrace to humanity.
>
> Of course not.
>
> I am simply something brilliant and very rare, that is to say an honest
> man.

Richard, does it not bother you to say that you are a very rare individual,
gifted in ways that most of humanity is not? Does this not give you pause
to say, perhaps I am not thinking well?

>
> I cannot accept the synchronization procedure of the relativists because
> it is not scientific but simply an a priori which would like the universe
> to be isochronous.

In science, perhaps you know this, no claim is a priori true. There must be
distinct, testable consequences that indicate that it is true. Note that
both the words “distinct” and “testable” are important.

>
> I have obviously understood very well, for decades that I have been
> talking about it, how Einstein's synchronization procedure worked.

Lastly, since you have mentioned that you have repeated the same statements
over and over for nearly forty years and have gotten no positive reception,
perhaps you have heard the saying that a good definition of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different
outcome.

>
> For him, everything is very simple: we ask ourselves no questions about
> the nature of space and time and we admit a priori that the universe is
> isochronous.
>
> It is then easy (and I would obviously agree if it were) to slowly move
> two previously tuned watches apart, or to send signals from an equidistant
> position to tune the watches.
>
> But the problem is not TECHNICAL or MATHEMATICAL.
>
> It is simply PHYSICAL.
>
> The universe is NOT isochronous.
>
> In the best case, this watch placed on the table and this watch placed on
> the cupboard and three meters apart, will always consider that the other
> watch is lagging behind it by 10 nanoseconds.
>
> It is a physical structure of space and time.
>
> This is called universal anisochrony.
>
> It also means that the notion of an "absolute present time" is an abstract
> idea.
>
> Like the notion of flat earth, pink unicorn or round square.
>
> R.H.
>
>

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

Le 07/04/2022 à 06:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> I have obviously understood very well, for decades that I have been
>> talking about it, how Einstein's synchronization procedure worked.
>
> It didn't and it never will. Its requirements are ridiculous.

Einstein's synchronization is ridiculous.

It assumes that the universe is made on the principle of "universal
present time".

In short, Hachel's isochrony is pure nonsense.

So he synchronizes all his clocks and he's happy.

His blindness is total.

I'm going to tell you where all this darkness (which thinks itself light)
comes from.

Initially, it comes from the first telescopes, and the observation of the
moons of Jupiter.

A huge blunder will then take place in the history of humanity.

Ole Romer will notice that the moons of Jupiter seem to rotate more or
less quickly depending on whether Jupiter is approaching or moving away
from the earth.

He then has this terrible sentence in the history of humanity: "When you
cut off the four legs of a dog, he becomes deaf, because he no longer
comes when he is called to eat".

Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.

Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.

We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
a finger.

"Are you sure it's coming from the ears?"

All of this is infinitely sad.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:

>
> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.
>
> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>
> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
> a finger.

Richard, again I want to make the observation that the man who dubs himself
a world-class genius has likely missed a few important things.

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>
>>
>> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.
>>
>> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>>
>> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
>> a finger.
>
> Richard, again I want to make the observation that the man who dubs himself
> a world-class genius has likely missed a few important things.
>
>

It’s also worth mentioning that when a man declares himself a world-class
genius and says that he’s had an a priori insight about the universe that
no one else in the world understands or accepts, then you’re also going to
find that people will largely ignore you simply because of that attitude
alone. This is because such an attitude is invariably a symptom of mental
delusions, and so the scientific claim can be considered useless also.

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.
>>>
>>> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>>>
>>> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
>>> a finger.
>>
>> Richard, again I want to make the observation that the man who dubs himself
>> a world-class genius has likely missed a few important things.
>>
>>
>
> It’s also worth mentioning that when a man declares himself a world-class
> genius and says that he’s had an a priori insight about the universe that
> no one else in the world understands or accepts, then you’re also going to
> find that people will largely ignore you simply because of that attitude
> alone. This is because such an attitude is invariably a symptom of mental
> delusions, and so the scientific claim can be considered useless also.
>

It is also worth mentioning that being ignored because of the above, is
something you can note from direct observation. Your claims have been
discarded for four decades. You have responded to that observed reaction by
simply repeating the same behaviors over and over, without change or
adaptation. The fact that you feel it is still worth your effort to pursue
the same impotent venture for another decade or two, learning nothing from
the reception you have earned, should also give you pause.

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

On 4/7/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.
>>>
>>> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>>>
>>> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
>>> a finger.
>>
>> Richard, again I want to make the observation that the man who dubs himself
>> a world-class genius has likely missed a few important things.
>>
>>
>
> It’s also worth mentioning that when a man declares himself a world-class
> genius and says that he’s had an a priori insight about the universe that
> no one else in the world understands or accepts, then you’re also going to
> find that people will largely ignore you simply because of that attitude
> alone.

Saying or acting has the same effect.

> This is because such an attitude is invariably a symptom of mental
> delusions, and so the scientific claim can be considered useless also.

Strange that even if a poster is technically right while being
antisocial the outcome is much the same. You get so tied up in
being right that you invariably miss your own points.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.
>>>>
>>>> Its timing is very pretty, but it is pointless.
>>>>
>>>> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently lift
>>>> a finger.
>>>
>>> Richard, again I want to make the observation that the man who dubs himself
>>> a world-class genius has likely missed a few important things.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It’s also worth mentioning that when a man declares himself a world-class
>> genius and says that he’s had an a priori insight about the universe that
>> no one else in the world understands or accepts, then you’re also going to
>> find that people will largely ignore you simply because of that attitude
>> alone.
>
> Saying or acting has the same effect.
>
>
>
>> This is because such an attitude is invariably a symptom of mental
>> delusions, and so the scientific claim can be considered useless also.
>
> Strange that even if a poster is technically right while being
> antisocial the outcome is much the same. You get so tied up in
> being right that you invariably miss your own points.
>

Please respond to Hachel yourself in the manner you think his post
warrants.

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

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
....
> Einstein will make the same misdiagnosis in 1905.

How could you say? You've never understood a single word
of it.

Nevertheless it can be *proven* it is consistent under
a minimal set of assumptions that are physically almost
self-evident, while it can be prove *your* scheme is
inconsistent.

> We will have to wait 70 years (1985) for a real genius (me) to gently
> lift a finger.

You're not a genius. You are a kook, a troll and a psychopath.

> All of this is infinitely sad.

That you lost 30 years of your life stuck in nonsense and
will probably die that way. Sure.