Le 09/04/2022 à 22:43, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> 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?

Nah but wait a minute, Michael Moronay.

You're still not as stupid as Jean-Pierre Messager?

Can't you read what I write?

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
> 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.

You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...

Vous pouvez voire à quel genre de personnage on a affaire...

Abus signalé, évidemment. Abuse report sent of course.

https://agenda.direct/rendez-vous/richard-lengrand/saint-yzan-de-soudiac/qualifie-en-medecine-generale/10002233582

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:19:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
> > 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.
> You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...

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?

Rabid crank Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:19:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
>>> 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.
>> You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...
>
> [snip idiotic off-topic rant from the janitor]

Are you thinking about improving your French Maciej?

Le 10/04/2022 à 17:19, Python a écrit :

>> Mais qu'il est con.

> Abus signalé, évidemment. Abuse report sent of course.

Oh, mon, Dieu, mon Dieu, oh, non! Pas d'abus!

S'il te plait, ne me signale pas!

Je dirais plus que tu es con, je te le promets.

R.H.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 18:20:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Rabid crank Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:19:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...
> >
> > [snip idiotic off-topic rant from the janitor]
>
> Are you thinking about improving your French Maciej?

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?

Laughing stock Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 18:20:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Rabid crank Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:19:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...
>>>
>>> [snip idiotic off-topic rant from the janitor]
>>
>> Are you thinking about improving your French Maciej?
>
> Oh, stinker ...

So you don't. So sad, you could have read Poincaré's original work.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 19:04:50 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Laughing stock Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 18:20:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Rabid crank Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:19:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...
> >>>
> >>> [snip idiotic off-topic rant from the janitor]
> >>
> >> Are you thinking about improving your French Maciej?
> >
> > Oh, stinker ...
>
> So you don't. So sad, you could have read Poincaré's original work.

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?

Den 08.04.2022 15:51, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 08/04/2022 à 15:06, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>> When you have explained what's wrong with my interpretation  of Rømer's
>> observations, you can explain YOUR interpretation  of Rømer's
>> observations.
>
> Romer will notice that when Jupiter approaches, the moons spin faster;
> and that when Jupiter moves away they rotate more slowly.

No, that wasn't what he observed.
Rømer NEW that the orbital period of Io was constant.
That's why he understood that the variation in the _observed_
period between two consecutive eclipses couldn't be caused by
a variation in the orbital period, so the variation had
to be caused by the variation in the distance Earth-Jupiter.

>
> The cause is scientifically obvious.
>
> This is a simple longitudinal Doppler effect.

Of course it is a Doppler effect.

If we call the observed apparent orbital frequency f,
and the real orbital frequency f₀ ( f₀ = 1/1.77days = 6.539e-6 Hz).

f(t) = f₀⋅(1 - v(t)/c) = f₀⋅(1 - (1/c)⋅dD(t)/dt)

where v is the speed of Jupiter relative to the Earth,
and D is the distance Earth-Jupiter.

Let Rₑ be the orbital radius of Earth and Rⱼ ditto for Jupiter and
let ωₑ be the angular velocity of Earth and ωⱼ ditto for Jupiter.

A bit trigonometry will the show that the distance is:

D(t) = √(Rⱼ²+Rₑ²-2RⱼRₑcos((ωₑ-ωⱼ)t))

When Jupiter is in opposition t = tₒ = 0:
D(tₒ) = (Rⱼ-Rₑ)

Jupiter is in conjunction when (ωₑ-ωⱼ)t = π, t = t₁ = π/(ωₑ-ωⱼ):
D(t₁) = (Rⱼ+Rₑ)

N = ∫ₜ f(t)⋅dt will be the number of cycles during the time t.

So the total number of cycles during the time interval tₒ-t₁ is:
N = N₀ - N₁ = ∫ₜf₀⋅dt - ∫ₜ(f₀/c)⋅v(t)⋅dt
N₀ = f₀⋅t₁ = f₀⋅π/(ωₑ-ωⱼ)
N₁ = -(f₀/c)[D(t₁)-D(tₒ)] = 2f₀Rₑ/c

With f₀ = 6.539e-6 Hz, Rₑ = 14.96e10 m, c = 299792458 m/s
tₒ = 0 s
t₁ = 17232788 s = 199.45 days
N₀ = 112.67868 cycles of f₀
N₁ = 0.006526 cycles of f₀
N = N₀ - N₁
The time during which the N cycles are received is t₁.

The time it takes for Io to orbit Jupiter N₀ times is:
T₀ = N₀/f₀ = 17231790 s

Let T₁ = N₁/f₀ = 998 s = 16.63 minutes.

On Earth we will receive the light for
the time t₁ = T₀ + T₁

That means that T₁ is the extra time it takes
the light to reach the Earth because the Earth
now is 2Rₑ further away.

So the speed of light is c = 2Rₑ/T₁ = 2.9979e8

This calculation is obviously a circularity.

The point is that Rømer _measured_ T₁ and found it to be 22 minutes.
We have now calculated the correct value to be 16.63 minutes.

Of different reasons Rømer couldn't observe the eclipses
at either opposition or conjunction, but he measured the apparent
orbital time of Io at different point of the Earth's orbit during
a couple of years. So the 22 minutes between opposition and
conjunction is a result of interpolation of a lot of measurements.

He worked at the Royal Observatory in Paris at the time (1673),
and I guess that the precision of the clocks at the observatory
was limited at the time.

>
> I think you are, and will continue to be, in agreement with me and the
> physicists on this assumption.
>
> But you can well imagine, dear Paul B. Andersen, that we are not going
> to stop on such a good intellectual path.
>
> So let's go further:
> "But this Doppler effect, what is it due to?"
>
> This is where I no longer agree with physicists: they tell me that it is
> due to the speed of light, and affirm that it is "the only possible and
> recognized cause".

In flat space time, the longitudinal Doppler shift is:
f/fo = √((c-v)/(c+v)) ≈ (1 - v/c)
where v is the speed of the source relative to the observer
and c is the speed of light.

This equation is extremely thoroughly verified (it is used
thousands of timers every day in observatories).

If you don't believe it, you have to be either very ignorant
or very stupid, possibly both.

Another source of Doppler shift is gravitational Doppler shift,
but this will be negligible in the Rømer case.

>
> I say that there are two, and that the second is much more clear,
> logical and obvious (internal theoretical perfection, external
> experimental perfection) than the first.
>
> In short, I say that it is not due to the speed of light (we observe the
> sky live-live, even to the most distant galaxies) but to another
> property of space, which I have called anisochrony.

Sorry, ignorance won't do it. It is worse.

Your ideas are of the same type as astrology.

I think you should post in another, not physics NG.

I am not going to respond to more idiocies of yours.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Filthy dog Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 19:04:50 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Laughing stock Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 18:20:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Rabid crank Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:19:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip idiotic off-topic rant from the janitor]
>>>>
>>>> Are you thinking about improving your French Maciej?
>>>
>>> Oh, stinker ...
>>
>> So you don't. So sad, you could have read Poincaré's original work.
>
> 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?

Still wanking on my leg, dirty dog?

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 22:05:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Filthy dog Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 19:04:50 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Laughing stock Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 18:20:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Rabid crank Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:19:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>> You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [snip idiotic off-topic rant from the janitor]
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you thinking about improving your French Maciej?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, stinker ...
> >>
> >> So you don't. So sad, you could have read Poincaré's original work.
> >
> > 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?
> Still wanking on my leg, dirty dog?

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?

Filthy dog Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 22:05:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Filthy dog Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 19:04:50 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Laughing stock Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 18:20:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Rabid crank Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:19:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip idiotic off-topic rant from the janitor]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you thinking about improving your French Maciej?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, stinker ...
>>>>
>>>> So you don't. So sad, you could have read Poincaré's original work.
>>>
>>> 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?
>> Still wanking on my leg, dirty dog?
>
> 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?

Yep, still :-)

Le 10/04/2022 à 21:00, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> No, that wasn't what he observed.
> Rømer NEW that the orbital period of Io was constant.
> That's why he understood that the variation in the _observed_
> period between two consecutive eclipses couldn't be caused by
> a variation in the orbital period, so the variation had
> to be caused by the variation in the distance Earth-Jupiter.

? ? ?

That's what I said.

R.H.

Le 10/04/2022 à 21:00, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

>> This is a simple longitudinal Doppler effect.
>
> Of course it is a Doppler effect.

Yes, that's what I said.

R.H.

Le 10/04/2022 à 21:00, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> In flat space time, the longitudinal Doppler shift is:
> f/fo = √((c-v)/(c+v)) ≈ (1 - v/c)
> where v is the speed of the source relative to the observer
> and c is the speed of light.

That's what I said.

But I also said that the observable speed of light was not the real
reason for this Doppler effect.

I said that reason is spatial anisochrony.

> If you don't believe it, you have to be either very ignorant
> or very stupid, possibly both.

No. You, you say that I had to be either very ignorant or very stupid, or
possibly both.

But you didn't read me correctly or you misunderstand me.

R.H.

Le 10/04/2022 à 21:00, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> Your ideas are of the same type as astrology.

Absolutely nothing to do with astrology and cartomancy.

R.H.

On 4/10/2022 10:50 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 09/04/2022 à 22:43, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> 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?
>
> Nah but wait a minute, Michael Moronay.
>
> You're still not as stupid as Jean-Pierre Messager?
>
> Can't you read what I write?

First you wrote that the two relatively moving observers observe the
exact same universe.

In the next sentence you write they see distorted versions of the
universe. Do you claim that both see the universe distorted in the
exact same way? If no, then they don't see the exact same universe, do
they.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 22:11:20 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Filthy dog Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 22:05:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Filthy dog Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 19:04:50 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Laughing stock Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 18:20:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Rabid crank Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:19:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrandd (M.D.) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>> You can see what kind of character we're dealing with...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [snip idiotic off-topic rant from the janitor]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you thinking about improving your French Maciej?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, stinker ...
> >>>>
> >>>> So you don't. So sad, you could have read Poincaré's original work.
> >>>
> >>> 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?
> >> Still wanking on my leg, dirty dog?
> >
> > 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?
> Yep, still :-)

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 11/04/2022 à 06:15, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>
> First you wrote that the two relatively moving observers observe the
> exact same universe.
>
> In the next sentence you write they see distorted versions of the
> universe. Do you claim that both see the universe distorted in the
> exact same way? If no, then they don't see the exact same universe, do
> they.

Thank you for your reply.

What I want to specify, because it is very important, is that two
observers who are in the same place observe exactly the same universe.

I do not mean that ALL the events perceived by one are also perceived by
the other, and that everything which is not perceived by one is not
perceived by the other.

It is in this that I say that they observe the same universe.

BUT I did not say that the POSITION of the events perceived was the same.

Time yes. t'=t=0.

Look at the transformations I gave (they are practically all known, I only
found them geometrically).

I put them back here.

On the other hand, there are spatial distortions on the x axis.

It is in this that they see the same universe, the same instantaneous
image of the whole universe, but distorted on the x-axis.

If you don't understand, don't hesitate to ask me for clarification, but
I'm going to have a hard time being any clearer.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?LCEr6Nq5oL5TlKe8xbHy6xzXOlc@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=LCEr6Nq5oL5TlKe8xbHy6xzXOlc@jntp>

R.H.

--
"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.

On 4/11/2022 7:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/04/2022 à 06:15, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>
>> First you wrote that the two relatively moving observers observe the
>> exact same universe.
>>
>> In the next sentence you write they see distorted versions of the
>> universe.  Do you claim that both see the universe distorted in the
>> exact same way?  If no, then they don't see the exact same universe,
>> do they.
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> What I want to specify, because it is very important, is that two
> observers who are in the same place observe exactly the same universe.
>
> I do not mean that ALL the events perceived by one are also perceived by
> the other, and that everything which is not perceived by one is not
> perceived by the other.
>
> It is in this that I say that they observe the same universe.
>
> BUT I did not say that the POSITION of the events perceived was the same.
>
> Time yes. t'=t=0.
>
> Look at the transformations I gave (they are practically all known, I
> only found them geometrically).
>
> I put them back here.
>
> On the other hand, there are spatial distortions on the x axis.
>
> It is in this that they see the same universe, the same instantaneous
> image of the whole universe, but distorted on the x-axis.
>
> If you don't understand, don't hesitate to ask me for clarification, but
> I'm going to have a hard time being any clearer.
>
It is perfectly clear now. The observers do not observe the exact same
universe.

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 21:35:01 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 7:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 11/04/2022 à 06:15, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> >>
> >> First you wrote that the two relatively moving observers observe the
> >> exact same universe.
> >>
> >> In the next sentence you write they see distorted versions of the
> >> universe. Do you claim that both see the universe distorted in the
> >> exact same way? If no, then they don't see the exact same universe,
> >> do they.
> >
> > Thank you for your reply.
> >
> > What I want to specify, because it is very important, is that two
> > observers who are in the same place observe exactly the same universe.
> >
> > I do not mean that ALL the events perceived by one are also perceived by
> > the other, and that everything which is not perceived by one is not
> > perceived by the other.
> >
> > It is in this that I say that they observe the same universe.
> >
> > BUT I did not say that the POSITION of the events perceived was the same.
> >
> > Time yes. t'=t=0.
> >
> > Look at the transformations I gave (they are practically all known, I
> > only found them geometrically).
> >
> > I put them back here.
> >
> > On the other hand, there are spatial distortions on the x axis.
> >
> > It is in this that they see the same universe, the same instantaneous
> > image of the whole universe, but distorted on the x-axis.
> >
> > If you don't understand, don't hesitate to ask me for clarification, but
> > I'm going to have a hard time being any clearer.
> >
> It is perfectly clear now. The observers do not observe the exact same
> universe.

How many universes do we have then, stupid Mike?