Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 14/04/2022 à 01:43, Python a écrit :
>
>> "observable speed" is an undefined term of yours.
>
> I have explained like a parrot many times that there are, in relativity,
> three speeds to take into account.

This is in no way a definition, there are three of them? So what?
Define each of them.

You have PRETENDED to explain, you've never done so. In thirty
years of garabage in fr.sci, NOT A SINGLE TIME. People tried
to guess, but who knows?

> The measurable or observable speeds that scientists denote v,

You *say* than.Physics defines what it means in term of coordinates
(x,y,z,t) and how to determine these coordinate. You don't. So
you words that you "measurable or observable" speed is what Physics
define as speed cannot be taken for granted.

But even if we assumed that:

> and that I
> denote Vo, to show, precisely, that this is what is observed,
> and not what is real.

Observed in which way? Again you define NOTHING.

> Vr : real speed.

Again, just a name: no definition.

> The apparent velocities Vapp (which is the same as what scientists call
> v_app.

There is NOTHING usually called v_app by "scientists", you made this up,
AGAIN.

You've DEFINED nothing, Lengrand.

> The effort required to understand me is not superhuman.

You do realize nothing you've wrote is a definition? How are you
that much a fool, Lengrand?

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 01:43:24 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengran (M.D.) wrote:
> > Le 13/04/2022 à 12:42, Python a écrit :
> ...
> >> By the way, it is also wrong. This is not what you end up with when
> >> deriving eq (15) from https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
> ...
> > The one you give, the (15), gives the observable speed in the
> > terrestrial frame of reference, compared to the proper time and the
> > proper acceleration of the particle or the rocket in its reference frame.
> "observable speed" is an undefined term or yours.

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?

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 14/04/2022 à 01:43, Python a écrit :
>
>> "observable speed" is an undefined term or yours.
>
> I have explained like a parrot many times that there are, in relativity,
> three speeds to take into account.

Not in physics. Not in any physics. Not Newtonian, not Einsteinian.

>
> The measurable or observable speeds that scientists denote v, and that I
> denote Vo, to show, precisely, that this is what is observed,
> and not what is real.
>
> Vr : real speed.
>
> The apparent velocities Vapp (which is the same as what scientists call
> v_app.
>
> The effort required to understand me is not superhuman.
>
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:55, Python a écrit :
>> No it's not. If you disagree you have to point out a flaw in the
>> derivation (there is none :-) )
>
> There must be a flaw somewhere.

No, there really isn’t. It’s easily understandable why you’ve been unable
to learn it. You simply haven’t used good materials to learn from. That’s
fixable, but only by your choice. Choose not to, and you will continue to
be off course.

> I have already explained many faults in
> RR. I'm tired of licking your shoes to be insulted in return.
>
> I repeat: if it is t that he uses (and not tau, proper time, Tr) the
> equation is false.
>
> But I think it was you who misunderstood something.
>
> I don't have time to waste on this, but if someone understands that their
> equation doesn't work anyway, I want to explain why: there must be a
> conceptual error (as I often say) in the diversion and we took a bladder
> for a lantern.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 14/04/2022 à 14:47, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 14/04/2022 à 01:43, Python a écrit :
>>
>>> "observable speed" is an undefined term or yours.
>>
>> I have explained like a parrot many times that there are, in relativity,
>> three speeds to take into account.
>
> Not in physics. Not in any physics. Not Newtonian, not Einsteinian.

Oui !!!

C'est ce que je dis.

Merci, merci, merci, Odd.

R.H.

Le 14/04/2022 à 14:57, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> That’s fixable

Is it fixable? My case is not hopeless, then?

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 14/04/2022 à 14:47, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 14/04/2022 à 01:43, Python a écrit :
>>>
>>>> "observable speed" is an undefined term or yours.
>>>
>>> I have explained like a parrot many times that there are, in relativity,
>>> three speeds to take into account.
>>
>> Not in physics. Not in any physics. Not Newtonian, not Einsteinian.
>
> Oui !!!
>
> C'est ce que je dis.
>
> Merci, merci, merci, Odd.
>
> R.H.
>

Moreover, please notice that adding new variables, especially unobservable
ones, will receive at best a dim reception among physicists, for good
reasons.

It’s your choice whether to pursue these three speeds, but also your choice
that in so doing, guaranteeing that they will be ignored.

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 14/04/2022 à 14:57, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> That’s fixable
>
> Is it fixable? My case is not hopeless, then?
>
> R.H.
>

Of course it’s fixable. All it takes is different choices than what you’ve
made the last 35 years. Is that possible for you?

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 14/04/2022 à 14:47, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 14/04/2022 à 01:43, Python a écrit :
>>>
>>>> "observable speed" is an undefined term or yours.
>>>
>>> I have explained like a parrot many times that there are, in relativity,
>>> three speeds to take into account.
>>
>> Not in physics. Not in any physics. Not Newtonian, not Einsteinian.
>
> Oui !!!
>
> C'est ce que je dis.
>
> Merci, merci, merci, Odd.
>
> R.H.
>

Moreover, please notice, that any attempt to add new kinds of speed,
especially in observable ones, are not going to be looked at kindly by the
physics community. You can feel free to define all sorts of variables, but
that isn’t going to be motivating for others to pay any attention to them.

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

Le 14/04/2022 à 17:42, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Moreover, please notice that adding new variables, especially unobservable
> ones, will receive at best a dim reception among physicists, for good
> reasons.
>
> It’s your choice whether to pursue these three speeds, but also your choice
> that in so doing, guaranteeing that they will be ignored.

Yes, excellent Odd, I completely agree.

Obviously.

But I'd rather they be ignored than keep quiet.

R.H.

Le 14/04/2022 à 17:42, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Of course it’s fixable. All it takes is different choices than what you’ve
> made the last 35 years. Is that possible for you?

No.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 14/04/2022 à 17:42, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Moreover, please notice that adding new variables, especially unobservable
>> ones, will receive at best a dim reception among physicists, for good
>> reasons.
>>
>> It’s your choice whether to pursue these three speeds, but also your choice
>> that in so doing, guaranteeing that they will be ignored.
>
> Yes, excellent Odd, I completely agree.
>
> Obviously.
>
> But I'd rather they be ignored than keep quiet.
>
> R.H.
>

I suppose that depends on what your objective is.
If you’d like to move others, then doing things you know are going to get
ignored seems not only counterproductive but a monstrous waste of time.
If on the other hand, all you’re really interested in is hearing yourself
talk, then there are other ways to do that, like writing a blog.

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 14/04/2022 à 17:42, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Of course it’s fixable. All it takes is different choices than what you’ve
>> made the last 35 years. Is that possible for you?
>
> No.

You’d have to explain to me why you are prevented from making different
choices.

>
> R.H.
>
>
>
>
>

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

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 9:59:39 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 14/04/2022 à 17:42, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> Moreover, please notice that adding new variables, especially unobservable
> >> ones, will receive at best a dim reception among physicists, for good
> >> reasons.
> >>
> >> It’s your choice whether to pursue these three speeds, but also your choice
> >> that in so doing, guaranteeing that they will be ignored.
> >
> > Yes, excellent Odd, I completely agree.
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
> > But I'd rather they be ignored than keep quiet.
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> I suppose that depends on what your objective is.
> If you’d like to move others, then doing things you know are going to get
> ignored seems not only counterproductive but a monstrous waste of time.
> If on the other hand, all you’re really interested in is hearing yourself
> talk, then there are other ways to do that, like writing a blog.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

By the standard of measurement there is no proof of relative motion.
An accelerating atom can have absolute motion behind light's.