On 4/8/2022 4:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

I don’t need an endgame.

You did and you took it. Any more out of you just
makes you a "sore loser."

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 4:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> I don’t need an endgame.
>
> You did and you took it. Any more out of you just
> makes you a "sore loser."
>

What do you win?

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

On 4/7/2022 10:09 AM, Odd Bodkin 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.
>
Exactly.

If other people, especially experts in a relevant field, say someone is
a genius in the relevant field, there's a good chance that person really
is a genius.

If a person calls himself a genius, there's a (very) good chance that
person is nothing but a crank.

On 4/8/2022 5:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 12:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
[...]

I feel bad two people whom I considered two of the saner people here are
fighting like cats and dogs. Maybe this place just drives people mad.

On 4/8/2022 7:31 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 4:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> I don’t need an endgame.
>>
>> You did and you took it. Any more out of you just
>> makes you a "sore loser."
>>
>
> What do you win?

Was there something to be won? I didn't think so.

On 4/8/2022 8:31 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 5:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2022 12:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> [...]
>
> I feel bad two people whom I considered two of the saner people here are
> fighting like cats and dogs.  Maybe this place just drives people mad.

That was a "fight?" I was having a discussion that was underappreciated.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 7:31 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2022 4:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>> I don’t need an endgame.
>>>
>>> You did and you took it. Any more out of you just
>>> makes you a "sore loser."
>>>
>>
>> What do you win?
>
> Was there something to be won? I didn't think so.
>

Then there is no loser b

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

On 4/8/2022 8:58 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 7:31 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 4:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don’t need an endgame.
>>>>
>>>> You did and you took it. Any more out of you just
>>>> makes you a "sore loser."
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you win?
>>
>> Was there something to be won? I didn't think so.
>>
>
> Then there is no loser b
>
That's right.

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 03:31:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 5:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 12:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> [...]
>
> I feel bad two people whom I considered two of the saner people here are
> fighting like cats and dogs. Maybe this place just drives people mad.

Kookfight, stupid Mike.

On 4/9/2022 2:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 03:31:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 5:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 12:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> I feel bad two people whom I considered two of the saner people here are
>> fighting like cats and dogs. Maybe this place just drives people mad.
>
> Kookfight, stupid Mike.

Kookfights require two kooks, janitor.

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 16:18:01 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 2:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 03:31:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 5:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2022 12:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> I feel bad two people whom I considered two of the saner people here are
> >> fighting like cats and dogs. Maybe this place just drives people mad.
> >
> > Kookfight, stupid Mike.
> Kookfights require two kooks, janitor.

Odd is one, Whodat is the second, cab't you count to 2,
stupid Mike?

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 07/04/2022 à 09:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> Poincaré wrote very well. Not only in mathematics and physics, but also
> in philosophy for example.
>
> We should find an article where he talks about synchronization.
>
> I know he said that "subjects placed on different theaters had different
> notions of simultaneity".
>
> But I don't remember if he was talking about anisochrony or chronotropy.

None of this, how could Poincaré could have been talking about somthing
that is at best undefined, and inconsistent.

You can read what Poincaré *actually* wrote there (in French):

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhs_0151-4105_2002_num_55_1_2143
starting at p68.

You will notice that Poincaré and Einstein views on simultaneity end
up with equivalent synchronization scheme.

So, again, Richard, you made up stuff which are completely false. You
are a f*g damn LIAR.

Le 09/04/2022 à 20:53, Python a écrit :

> https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhs_0151-4105_2002_num_55_1_2143
> starting at p68.
>
> You will notice that Poincaré and Einstein views on simultaneity end
> up with equivalent synchronization scheme.
>
> So, again, Richard, you made up stuff which are completely false. You
> are a f*g damn LIAR.

This is an interesting read, but I have the impression that it diverts my
point.

I see for example that both authors BELIEVE that light travels at the same
speed from A to B and from B to A.

It is true that if you don't think about it too much, it can be imagined.

But this a priori idea is false.

This would be true in isochronous mode.

But the world is NOT isochronous.

So it is possibly true for an observer C, observing the light ray moving
transversely between A and B.

You would have to be crazy to think that the speed of light is unequal in
one direction compared to the other FOR C. Absurd reasoning.

But for A and for B who observe things longitudinally it is not the same
thing.

The speed of light is actually instantaneous.

It's just an instantaneous transfer of energy between a source and a
receiver IN the receiver's frame of reference.

In this sense, any receiver observes the world live-live.

More astonishing (or less astonishing if you will): two observers crossing
each other at very high speed in the solar frame of reference (let's
assume 0.8c of relative speed), observe EXACTLY the same visible universe
(although very deformed on their x-axis ).

But the entirety of the "historical" universe visible to one is also
visible to the other.

It is a pity that Poincaré does not speak of it. He seems to say the
opposite of me.
Same for Einstein.
Now, if they think differently than me, who applies the Lorentz
transformations correctly and finds t'=t=0 in this precise case, it is
their fault.

And they are wrong.

I am right.

You can insult me ​​if you want: you won't change a scientific truth.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 09/04/2022 à 20:53, Python a écrit :
>
>> https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhs_0151-4105_2002_num_55_1_2143
>> starting at p68.
>>
>> You will notice that Poincaré and Einstein views on simultaneity end
>> up with equivalent synchronization scheme.
>>
>> So, again, Richard, you made up stuff which are completely false. You
>> are a f*g damn LIAR.
>
> This is an interesting read

Right, how come you've never read it before if you pretend to
be interested in the subject? You should read it again, and
read other sources and watch courses I mentioned before.

> [snip bs]

> More astonishing (or less astonishing if you will): two observers
> crossing each other at very high speed in the solar frame of reference
> (let's assume 0.8c of relative speed), observe EXACTLY the same visible
> universe (although very deformed on their x-axis ).

You contradict yourself in a single sentence.

"EXACTLY the same visible universe" and "very deformed" are
contradicting attributes.

> [snip bs]

> It is a pity that Poincaré does not speak of it. He seems to say the
> opposite of me.
> Same for Einstein.

So you will stop pretending following Poincaré's steps, right? Well,
I know that you won't, intellectual honesty is not your thing.

Le 09/04/2022 à 21:34, Jean-Pierre Messager dit Python a écrit :

>> More astonishing (or less astonishing if you will): two observers
>> crossing each other at very high speed in the solar frame of reference
>> (let's assume 0.8c of relative speed), observe EXACTLY the same visible
>> universe (although very deformed on their x-axis ).
>
> You contradict yourself in a single sentence.
>
> "EXACTLY the same visible universe" and "very deformed" are
> contradicting attributes.

No.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D) wroe:
....
>> "EXACTLY the same visible universe" and "very deformed" are
>> contradicting attributes.
>
> No.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissonance_cognitive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Le 09/04/2022 à 21:56, Jean-Pierre Messager (Python) a écrit :

> ...
>>> "EXACTLY the same visible universe" and "very deformed" are
>>> contradicting attributes.
>>
>> No.
>
> snip baby crying.

Visible universe for two observers crossing at relativistic speed.

They observe exactly the same universe.

But spatially very distorted on the x-axis.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fDzf50iYMlzlvYd2K5HDAkoNf2A@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
....
> More astonishing (or less astonishing if you will): two observers
> crossing each other at very high speed in the solar frame of reference
> (let's assume 0.8c of relative speed), observe EXACTLY the same visible
> universe (although very deformed on their x-axis ).

By the way this is even not the case in classical (newtonian) dynamics.
Consider stars light aberration...

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 09/04/2022 à 21:56, Jean-Pierre Messager (Python) a écrit :
>
>> ...
>>>> "EXACTLY the same visible universe" and "very deformed" are
>>>> contradicting attributes.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> snip baby crying.
>
> Visible universe for two observers crossing at relativistic speed.
>
> They observe exactly the same universe.
>
> But spatially very distorted on the x-axis.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fDzf50iYMlzlvYd2K5HDAkoNf2A@jntp/Data.Media:1>

This does not support the utter idiocy that "exactly the same" and "not
the same" are mutually exclusive terms.

Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>> Le 09/04/2022 à 21:56, Jean-Pierre Messager (Python) a écrit :
>>
>>> ...
>>>>> "EXACTLY the same visible universe" and "very deformed" are
>>>>> contradicting attributes.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> snip baby crying.
>>
>> Visible universe for two observers crossing at relativistic speed.
>>
>> They observe exactly the same universe.
>>
>> But spatially very distorted on the x-axis.
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fDzf50iYMlzlvYd2K5HDAkoNf2A@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
>
> This does not support the utter idiocy that "exactly the same" and "not
> the same" are mutually exclusive terms.

Err: the same" are not mutually exclusive terms.

On 4/9/2022 10:34 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 16:18:01 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/9/2022 2:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 03:31:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 5:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 12:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I feel bad two people whom I considered two of the saner people here are
>>>> fighting like cats and dogs. Maybe this place just drives people mad.
>>>
>>> Kookfight, stupid Mike.
>> Kookfights require two kooks, janitor.
>
> Odd is one, Whodat is the second, cab't you count to 2,
> stupid Mike?

Sorry, I count zero kooks. One if I count yourself.
Neither of those two have come up with non-scientific "theories" or show
signs of OCD-fueled hatred to any scientist, nor self proclamation of
being some sort of science "genius" or "one of the best logician
humanity ever had" or similar kook behavior.

On 4/9/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 09/04/2022 à 21:56, Jean-Pierre Messager (Python) a écrit :
>
>> ...
>>>> "EXACTLY the same visible universe" and "very deformed" are
>>>> contradicting attributes.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> snip baby crying.
>
> Visible universe for two observers crossing at relativistic speed.
>
> They observe exactly the same universe.
>
> But spatially very distorted on the x-axis.

If they see distorted versions of the universe, they don't see exactly
the same thing, do they.

Make up your mind: Do they see the exact same universe or distorted
versions of the universe?

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 20:53:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > Le 07/04/2022 à 09:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >> 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.
> >
> > Poincaré wrote very well. Not only in mathematics and physics, but also
> > in philosophy for example.
> >
> > We should find an article where he talks about synchronization.
> >
> > I know he said that "subjects placed on different theaters had different
> > notions of simultaneity".
> >
> > But I don't remember if he was talking about anisochrony or chronotropy..
>
> None of this, how could Poincaré could have been talking about somthing

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 Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 22:24:20 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 10:34 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 16:18:01 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/9/2022 2:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 03:31:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2022 5:29 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/8/2022 12:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 7:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> I feel bad two people whom I considered two of the saner people here are
> >>>> fighting like cats and dogs. Maybe this place just drives people mad.
> >>>
> >>> Kookfight, stupid Mike.
> >> Kookfights require two kooks, janitor.
> >
> > Odd is one, Whodat is the second, cab't you count to 2,
> > stupid Mike?
> Sorry, I count zero kooks.

Don't have to be sorry, it's not youir fault, stupid Mike.

Le 09/04/2022 à 22:12, Python a écrit :
> By the way this is even not the case in classical (newtonian) dynamics.
> Consider stars light aberration...

Et ma bite dans le cul, Jean-Pierre Messager? T'as goûté aussi?

Il est de plus en plus con, ce con.

Mais qu'il est con.

Il est quand même pas plus con que zéro?

Respirez, soufflez... Je vais vous montrer la connerie degré moins -1.

"Et parmi les plus cons, notre espèce excella"
Jean de la Fontaine avait raison.

R.H.