Le 09/04/2022 à 03:15, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> I can't make it any clearer.
>>
> Yes you can. You can quit using words like "isochronous" and
> "chronotropy" which have completely different meanings.

Oui, mais ça, c'est VOTRE problème.

Pas le mien.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 09/04/2022 à 03:15, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> I can't make it any clearer.
>>>
>> Yes you can. You can quit using words like "isochronous" and
>> "chronotropy" which have completely different meanings.
>
> Oui, mais ça, c'est VOTRE problème. Pas le mien.

That morony slavic nazi, turned anglo-saxon, thinks words have other
meaning words use to have.

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

> Le 09/04/2022 à 03:15, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> > On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> >> I can't make it any clearer.
> >>
> > Yes you can. You can quit using words like "isochronous" and
> > "chronotropy" which have completely different meanings.
>
> Oui, mais ça, c'est VOTRE problème.
>
> Pas le mien.

<https://xkcd.com/1860/>

Jan

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 7:41:35 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le 09/04/2022 à 03:15, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> > > On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >
> > >> I can't make it any clearer.
> > >>
> > > Yes you can. You can quit using words like "isochronous" and
> > > "chronotropy" which have completely different meanings.
> >
> > Oui, mais ça, c'est VOTRE problème.
> >
> > Pas le mien.
> <https://xkcd.com/1860/>
>
> Jan

The next one is even better...

https://xkcd.com/1861/

On 4/9/2022 9:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 09/04/2022 à 03:15, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> I can't make it any clearer.
>>>
>> Yes you can. You can quit using words like "isochronous" and
>> "chronotropy" which have completely different meanings.
>
> Oui, mais ça, c'est VOTRE problème.
>
> Pas le mien.
>
False. If you wish to communicate with scientists, you need to use their
language, not use made-up words nobody else uses.

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 17:49:48 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 9:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 09/04/2022 à 03:15, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> >> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>
> >>> I can't make it any clearer.
> >>>
> >> Yes you can. You can quit using words like "isochronous" and
> >> "chronotropy" which have completely different meanings.
> >
> > Oui, mais ça, c'est VOTRE problème.
> >
> > Pas le mien.
> >
> False. If you wish to communicate with scientists, you need to use their
> language, not use made-up words nobody else uses.

Similiarly, when communicating with nazis, you must
call AH "great, ingenioujs leader". Otherwise, the
communication will probably fail.

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
....
> Of course, its meaning is: two events are simuyltaneous
> when their TAI/GPS/UTC coordinate is equal. Your

If the experiment could be done with enough accuracy to conclude
that when a solid body is under action of no force, when measuring
its positions in time with TAI configured clocks it won't obey
Newton's laws of motion (i.e. constant velocity) (while if using
Poincaré-Einstein synchronized clocks it will) would you bet
your life, Maciej, on the result?

> bunch of fanatics can scream "NOOOOOOOO!!!!" as
> much as you want, it's not going to change anyhthing.

The only one screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" here, while shiting in his
pants, is you Maciej.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 13:43:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> ...
> > Of course, its meaning is: two events are simuyltaneous
> > when their TAI/GPS/UTC coordinate is equal. Your
> If the experiment could be done with enough accuracy to conclude

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?

Anyway, two events are simultaneous
when their TAI/GPS/UTC coordinate is equal.
That's how things are in the world we inhabit. Your
bunch of fanatics can scream "NOOOOOOOO!!!!" as
much as you want, it's not going to change anyhthing.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 13:43:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>> ...
>>> Of course, its meaning is: two events are simuyltaneous
>>> when their TAI/GPS/UTC coordinate is equal. Your
>> If the experiment could be done with enough accuracy to conclude
>
>
> [rant about another confusion in Maciej's mind]

No answer? No surprise.

(snipped post restablished)
>> If the experiment could be done with enough accuracy to conclude
>> that when a solid body is under action of no force, when measuring
>> its positions in time with TAI configured clocks it won't obey
>> Newton's laws of motion (i.e. constant velocity) (while if using
>> Poincaré-Einstein synchronized clocks it will) would you bet
>> your life, Maciej, on the result?
>>
>>> bunch of fanatics can scream "NOOOOOOOO!!!!" as
>>> much as you want, it's not going to change anyhthing.
>>
>> The only one screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" here, while shiting in his
>> pants, is you Maciej.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 14:20:22 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 13:43:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Of course, its meaning is: two events are simuyltaneous
> >>> when their TAI/GPS/UTC coordinate is equal. Your
> >> If the experiment could be done with enough accuracy to conclude
> >
> >
> > [rant about another confusion in Maciej's mind]
>
> No answer? No surprise.

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?