Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> And that this answer is correct is not to be answered by which
>>> equations are more beautiful, Hachel, but by experimental result. Not
>>> necessarily this direct measurement to Tau Ceti, of course, because
>>> that’s not necessary, but by other equivalent cases of accelerated
>>> objects.
>>
>> I respect your thinking. But what you say is wrong.
>
> Wrong. Experimental results are what matters.

Ukraine Soldiers, Ordered, to Execute Civilians
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0cTw2n6zPQWu/

Zelensky Does Bizarre Address Drunk or High on Cocaine
https://www.bitchute.com/video/msr2L1dZ62cX/

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > We agree formally that a theory must be logically consistent, but we
> > disagree on the substance. Again, special relativity is logically consistent
> > and beautiful, whereas your beliefs are logically fallacious and ugly nonsense.
> >
> >> Take the Pythagorean theorem.
> >> a²+b²=c² is very simple and very beautiful.
> >
> > Yes, and special relativity has the analog x² - t² = s² . Simple, beautiful,
> > logically consistent, and agrees with experiment. In contrast, your beliefs
> > are complicated, ugly, logically inconsistent, and empirically falsified.
> > Agreed?
>
> No. It's not very beautiful.

That's strange, because you cited a² + b² = c² as an example of "very
beautiful", and yet you say x² - t² = s² is not beautiful. How does the
minus sign change it from very beautiful to not beautiful at all?

> To²=Tr²+Et² is more beautiful.

The first requirement of beauty in science is clarity and logical consistency,
but what you have typed is just gibberish. You see, in the scientific equation,
x and t signify the coordinates given by a grid of standard rulers and inertially
synchronized standard clocks, whereas your symbols To, Tr, Et have no
clear physical meaning, and no definite relation to the physically
meaningful measures of time and space. Logically incoherent gibberish
is never conceptually beautiful.

Le 18/04/2022 à 20:54, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> Logically incoherent gibberish
> is never conceptually beautiful.

I am okay.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/04/2022 à 20:54, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>
>> Logically incoherent gibberish
>> is never conceptually beautiful.
>
> I am okay.
>
> R.H.
>

It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting judgments of
your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.

You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.

You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking about.

In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
independently.

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

On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 20:54:56 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > We agree formally that a theory must be logically consistent, but we
> > > disagree on the substance. Again, special relativity is logically consistent
> > > and beautiful, whereas your beliefs are logically fallacious and ugly nonsense.
> > >
> > >> Take the Pythagorean theorem.
> > >> a²+b²=c² is very simple and very beautiful.
> > >
> > > Yes, and special relativity has the analog x² - t² = s² . Simple, beautiful,
> > > logically consistent, and agrees with experiment. In contrast, your beliefs
> > > are complicated, ugly, logically inconsistent, and empirically falsified.
> > > Agreed?
> >
> > No. It's not very beautiful.
> That's strange, because you cited a² + b² = c² as an example of "very
> beautiful", and yet you say x² - t² = s² is not beautiful. How does the
> minus sign change it from very beautiful to not beautiful at all?
> > To²=Tr²+Et² is more beautiful.
> The first requirement of beauty in science is clarity and logical consistency,
> but what you have typed is just gibberish. You see, in the scientific equation,
> x and t signify the coordinates given by a grid of standard rulers and inertially
> synchronized standard clocks, whereas your symbols To, Tr, Et have no
> clear physical meaning, and no definite relation to the physically
> meaningful measures of time and space. Logically incoherent gibberish
> is never conceptually beautiful.

Your beautiful Shit is a clear and obvious counterexample
against your statement, isn't it?

Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting judgments of
> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>
> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>
> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking about.
>
> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
> independently.

You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't you?

R.H.

Le 18/04/2022 à 21:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 20:54:56 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > > We agree formally that a theory must be logically consistent, but we
>> > > disagree on the substance. Again, special relativity is logically consistent
>>
>> > > and beautiful, whereas your beliefs are logically fallacious and ugly
>> nonsense.
>> > >
>> > >> Take the Pythagorean theorem.
>> > >> a²+b²=c² is very simple and very beautiful.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and special relativity has the analog x² - t² = s² . Simple,
>> beautiful,
>> > > logically consistent, and agrees with experiment. In contrast, your beliefs
>> > > are complicated, ugly, logically inconsistent, and empirically falsified.
>> > > Agreed?
>> >
>> > No. It's not very beautiful.
>> That's strange, because you cited a² + b² = c² as an example of "very
>> beautiful", and yet you say x² - t² = s² is not beautiful. How does the
>> minus sign change it from very beautiful to not beautiful at all?
>> > To²=Tr²+Et² is more beautiful.
>> The first requirement of beauty in science is clarity and logical consistency,
>> but what you have typed is just gibberish. You see, in the scientific equation,
>> x and t signify the coordinates given by a grid of standard rulers and
>> inertially
>> synchronized standard clocks, whereas your symbols To, Tr, Et have no
>> clear physical meaning, and no definite relation to the physically
>> meaningful measures of time and space. Logically incoherent gibberish
>> is never conceptually beautiful.
>
> Your beautiful Shit is a clear and obvious counterexample
> against your statement, isn't it?

Maciej, I would like you to give, too, an answer to the little problem
that I imagined.

This is the traveler from Tau Ceti.

A traveler leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of g=10m/s².

The distance to travel to reach Tau Ceti is 12 light years.

What time will it be on his watch when he arrives?

Several relativists on this forum answered me that the trip would last a
little more than three years, but I did not endorse their answer.

I firmly believe that they are wrong and that their equation used is
wrong.

Can I have your opinion on this?

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting judgments of
>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>>
>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>>
>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking about.
>>
>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>> independently.
>
> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't you?
>
> R.H.
>

Nope. Just uneducated in the subject and wrong, understandably so.

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

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 1:13:08 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> A traveler leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of g=10m/s².
> The distance to travel to reach Tau Ceti is 12 light years. What time
> will it be on his watch when he arrives? Several relativists on this forum
> answered me that the trip would last a little more than three years, but
> I firmly believe that they are wrong...

Why? What is the basis of your firm belief? You have stated that
To²=Tr²+Et² , but without being able to relate those symbols with
the physically meaningful coordinates and proper times, your
symbols are meaningless.

The answer given by special relativity is quite simple: Just integrate
sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path to give the elapsed proper time.

On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting judgments of
>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking about.
>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>> independently.
>
> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't you?
>
Why would he? Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
see any reason that you would be.

Le 19/04/2022 à 03:27, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>> A traveler leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of g=10m/s².
>> The distance to travel to reach Tau Ceti is 12 light years. What time
>> will it be on his watch when he arrives? Several relativists on this forum
>> answered me that the trip would last a little more than three years, but
>> I firmly believe that they are wrong...
>
> Why? What is the basis of your firm belief? You have stated that
> To²=Tr²+Et² , but without being able to relate those symbols with
> the physically meaningful coordinates and proper times, your
> symbols are meaningless.
>
> The answer given by special relativity is quite simple: Just integrate
> sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path to give the elapsed proper time.

No, it's not that simple.

Relativists have a form of geometry which suits them, but which is not the
correct geometry.

It is as if a navigator traveler were doing plane geometry to go around
the world, his calculations would sometimes be correct, but sometimes not.

There are conceptual errors in the current ideology, and I showed where
the conceptual errors were.

With regard to the primordial equation, the real basis of the theory of
relativity, also valid in the case of accelerated frames of reference, it
is necessary to set To²=Tr²+Et²
The last value being that of the local anisochrony.
Et=x/c in a vacuum.

You can very simply test the truth of this equation on uniform velocity or
accelerated velocity frames of reference. The equation always remains the
same.

Let's pose it in the Langevin problem (the twin starts at 0.8c of constant
speed to travel 12 ly.

Its proper time (all physicists know this) will be 18 years.

I note Tr=18

The time noted by its brother which remains in the terrestrial reference
frame is To (observable time).

The brother notes To=30.

Everyone knows that.

If we set Et=x/c=24

We come across the equation that links the proper time Tr of one to the
observable time To of the other.

I repeat:
To²=Tr²+Et²

It is a magnificent Pythagoreanism.

Here, 30²=18²+24²

But that's not all, this equation, I just said, remains valid in
accelerated repositories.

Take the case of the traveler from Tau Ceti.

a=10m/s²
x=12 ly.

Et=12 years=4380 days
(I don't count leap years).

To=4714 days
Tr= 1744 days
(Beware, relativists miscalculate proper time, their equation is
incorrect).
Et=4380 days

Or again: To²=Tr²+Et²

R.H.

Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting judgments of
>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking about.
>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>>> independently.
>>
>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't you?
>>
> Why would he? Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
> see any reason that you would be.

Yes, you are 100% correct.

The mentally ill are not dangerous.

So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
dangerous guy.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting judgments of
>>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking about.
>>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>>>> independently.
>>>
>>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't you?
>>>
>> Why would he? Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
>> see any reason that you would be.
>
> Yes, you are 100% correct.
>
> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
>
> So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
> dangerous guy.
>
> R.H.
>

According to whom?

And if you were regarded as dangerous by anyone that mattered, why wouldn’t
you be locked up?

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

On 4/19/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting
>>>> judgments of
>>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking
>>>> about.
>>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>>>> independently.
>>>
>>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't
>>> you?
>>>
>> Why would he?  Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
>> see any reason that you would be.
>
> Yes, you are 100% correct.
>
> The mentally ill are not dangerous.

I said most aren't. Some are obviously dangerous. Don't change what I wrote.
>
> So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
> dangerous guy.

Have you? By whom? Do you have a police record for violent crimes? Are
you posting from within a prison (or secure psychiatric ward)?

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting
>>>>> judgments of
>>>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>>>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>>>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking
>>>>> about.
>>>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>>>>> independently.
>>>>
>>>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't
>>>> you?
>>>>
>>> Why would he?  Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
>>> see any reason that you would be.
>>
>> Yes, you are 100% correct.
>>
>> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
>
> I said most aren't. Some are obviously dangerous. Don't change what I wrote.
>>
>> So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
>> dangerous guy.
>
> Have you? By whom? Do you have a police record for violent crimes? Are
> you posting from within a prison (or secure psychiatric ward)?
>

Have you noticed that a common aspiration among the cranks to groups like
this is to be the lone genius, the outside agitator, the dangerous threat,
the crazy but crafty one? What is it about people who wish this to be true?

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

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>> On 4/19/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting
>>>>>> judgments of
>>>>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>>>>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>>>>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking
>>>>>> about.
>>>>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>>>>>> independently.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't
>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>> Why would he?  Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
>>>> see any reason that you would be.
>>>
>>> Yes, you are 100% correct.
>>>
>>> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
>>
>> I said most aren't. Some are obviously dangerous. Don't change what I wrote.
>>>
>>> So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
>>> dangerous guy.
>>
>> Have you? By whom? Do you have a police record for violent crimes? Are
>> you posting from within a prison (or secure psychiatric ward)?
>>
>
> Have you noticed that a common aspiration among the cranks to groups like
> this is to be the lone genius, the outside agitator, the dangerous threat,
> the crazy but crafty one? What is it about people who wish this to be true?

They picture themselves as lions while they are roaches...

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:27:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:

> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
>
Indeed, YOU aren't dangerous, you are just the butt of all jokes. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 17:01:23 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>> Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> >>>> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>>>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting
> >>>>>> judgments of
> >>>>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
> >>>>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
> >>>>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking
> >>>>>> about.
> >>>>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
> >>>>>> independently.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't
> >>>>> you?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Why would he? Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
> >>>> see any reason that you would be.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, you are 100% correct.
> >>>
> >>> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
> >>
> >> I said most aren't. Some are obviously dangerous. Don't change what I wrote.
> >>>
> >>> So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
> >>> dangerous guy.
> >>
> >> Have you? By whom? Do you have a police record for violent crimes? Are
> >> you posting from within a prison (or secure psychiatric ward)?
> >>
> >
> > Have you noticed that a common aspiration among the cranks to groups like
> > this is to be the lone genius, the outside agitator, the dangerous threat,
> > the crazy but crafty one? What is it about people who wish this to be true?
> They picture themselves as lions while they are roaches...

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 Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 16:59:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 4/19/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> >>> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >>>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting
> >>>>> judgments of
> >>>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
> >>>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
> >>>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking
> >>>>> about.
> >>>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
> >>>>> independently.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't
> >>>> you?
> >>>>
> >>> Why would he? Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
> >>> see any reason that you would be.
> >>
> >> Yes, you are 100% correct.
> >>
> >> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
> >
> > I said most aren't. Some are obviously dangerous. Don't change what I wrote.
> >>
> >> So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
> >> dangerous guy.
> >
> > Have you? By whom? Do you have a police record for violent crimes? Are
> > you posting from within a prison (or secure psychiatric ward)?
> >
> Have you noticed that a common aspiration among the cranks to groups like
> this is to be the lone genius, the outside agitator, the dangerous threat,
> the crazy but crafty one?

Bod, for instance, is deeply believing that his barking
is causing some horrible pain and "cranks" don't run
before it only when/because they're sick.

Le 19/04/2022 à 17:01, Python a écrit :
> They picture themselves as lions while they are roaches...

I am a lion.

Toi, tu es un cafard méprisant.

Mais bon... C'est la vie, il faut faire avec.

Va jouer, Jean-Pierre.

R.H.

Le 19/04/2022 à 17:03, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:27:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
>>
> Indeed, YOU aren't dangerous, you are just the butt of all jokes. Keep it up,
> dumbestfuck!

It's been a long time since I understood what a laugh was.

Especially the yellow laughter by the way.

Forced laugh.

R.H.

On 4/19/2022 10:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>> On 4/19/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting
>>>>>> judgments of
>>>>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>>>>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>>>>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking
>>>>>> about.
>>>>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>>>>>> independently.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't
>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>> Why would he?  Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
>>>> see any reason that you would be.
>>>
>>> Yes, you are 100% correct.
>>>
>>> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
>>
>> I said most aren't. Some are obviously dangerous. Don't change what I wrote.
>>>
>>> So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
>>> dangerous guy.
>>
>> Have you? By whom? Do you have a police record for violent crimes? Are
>> you posting from within a prison (or secure psychiatric ward)?
>>
>
> Have you noticed that a common aspiration among the cranks to groups like
> this is to be the lone genius, the outside agitator, the dangerous threat,
> the crazy but crafty one? What is it about people who wish this to be true?
>
I certainly have. As long as "the dangerous threat" part doesn't mean
physically dangerous to any person or to property, but only "dangerous"
to a theory or ideas (in their view), my "dangerous" use doesn't apply.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 10:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting
>>>>>>> judgments of
>>>>>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>>>>>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>>>>>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking
>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>>>>>>> independently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't
>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why would he?  Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
>>>>> see any reason that you would be.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are 100% correct.
>>>>
>>>> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
>>>
>>> I said most aren't. Some are obviously dangerous. Don't change what I wrote.
>>>>
>>>> So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
>>>> dangerous guy.
>>>
>>> Have you? By whom? Do you have a police record for violent crimes? Are
>>> you posting from within a prison (or secure psychiatric ward)?
>>>
>>
>> Have you noticed that a common aspiration among the cranks to groups like
>> this is to be the lone genius, the outside agitator, the dangerous threat,
>> the crazy but crafty one? What is it about people who wish this to be true?
>>
> I certainly have.

By whom?

> As long as "the dangerous threat" part doesn't mean
> physically dangerous to any person or to property, but only "dangerous"
> to a theory or ideas (in their view), my "dangerous" use doesn't apply.
>

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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 16:59:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 19/04/2022 à 07:49, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:07 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 21:35, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>>> It will help enormously if you would refrain from connecting
>>>>>>> judgments of
>>>>>>> your ideas to judgements of you and your mental health.
>>>>>>> You can have a wrong idea and still be mentally ok.
>>>>>>> You can be mentally ill, but have some idea of what you’re talking
>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>> In your case, there are problems with both, but they can be fixed
>>>>>>> independently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're going to spread the idea that I'm a dangerous guy soon, aren't
>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why would he? Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and I don't
>>>>> see any reason that you would be.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are 100% correct.
>>>>
>>>> The mentally ill are not dangerous.
>>>
>>> I said most aren't. Some are obviously dangerous. Don't change what I wrote.
>>>>
>>>> So explain to me why, all my life, I've been considered an extremely
>>>> dangerous guy.
>>>
>>> Have you? By whom? Do you have a police record for violent crimes? Are
>>> you posting from within a prison (or secure psychiatric ward)?
>>>
>> Have you noticed that a common aspiration among the cranks to groups like
>> this is to be the lone genius, the outside agitator, the dangerous threat,
>> the crazy but crafty one?
>
> Bod, for instance, is deeply believing that his barking
> is causing some horrible pain and "cranks" don't run
> before it only when/because they're sick.
>

Actually, no, that is not my belief and it is not my intent.
You may have a habitual flinch associated with past interactions on this
group, but that’s on you.

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

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:21:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > The answer given by special relativity is quite simple: Just integrate
> > sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path to give the elapsed proper time.
>
> Let's pose it in the Langevin problem (the twin starts at 0.8c of constant
> speed to travel 12 ly. Its proper time (all physicists know this) will be 18 years.
> I note Tr=18. The time noted by its brother which remains in the terrestrial
> reference frame is To (observable time). The brother notes To=30. If we set Et=x/c=24
> We come across the equation that links the proper time Tr of one to the
> observable time To of the other. I repeat: To²=Tr²+Et²

That is just the special relativity equation with different symbols. You are
using the symbol "Tr" to denote the elapsed proper time, usually called dtau,
and you are using the symbol "To" to denote the elapsed coordinate time,
usually called dt, and you're using "Et" to denote the coordinate spatial
distance, usually called dx. So your equation is simply dt^2 = dtau^2 + dx^2,
which is the same as the Minkowski pseudometric dtau^2 = dt^2 - dx^2.

> This equation remains valid in accelerated repositories.

Well, in special relativity that equation remains perfectly valid for
accelerating objects. To get the correct answer for an accelerating
object, we simply split the distance into small segments, during which
the speed of the object has some average value, and we compute the elapsed
time for each segment, and then we add all the elapsed times for the
entire journey. If we split the distance into infinitely many small
segments, each with a specific velocity, we get the exact result. That's
what it means to integrate dtau = sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) to get the total.

> Take the case of the traveler from Tau Ceti.

For that case the total elapsed proper time is 3.14 years.

> Or again: To²=Tr²+Et²

That relation is true for each infinitesimal segment, and to get the
total elapsed "Tr" over the journey we need to integrate sqrt(To^2 - Et^2)
along the path (using your symbols). This gives the correct result 3.14
years.