In theories a little complicated for the simple person, it is very
important to explain well. It is also very important to fully understand
yourself what you are explaining.

I pointed out that the way relativists assumed the proper time of a
constantly accelerating rocket was not correct and that it came from a
misuse of Leibniz integration.

A good surgeon will then open the belly, and open wide: to see well and
see everything.

So I begin, if you don't mind, with a little personal reflection (with
personal notation if you allow me).

I assume that the length of a table is the sum of all the small lengths
that form that table.

In this, I am untouchable.

My mathematical reasoning is good.

I make no mistake.

Neither the great physicists, nor the great mathematicians, nor the
"cranks" can contradict me.

What is stated well is not smearable.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?6jXcOrhmKSdnO_J-FwOtm474mhg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=6jXcOrhmKSdnO_J-FwOtm474mhg@jntp>

So far, is good?

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes : il y a des situations de violence."
Abbé Pierre.

Le 24/04/2022 à 23:42, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>
> In theories a little complicated for the simple person, it is very important to
> explain well. It is also very important to fully understand yourself what you are
> explaining.
>
> I pointed out that the way relativists assumed the proper time of a constantly
> accelerating rocket was not correct and that it came from a misuse of Leibniz
> integration.
>
> A good surgeon will then open the belly, and open wide: to see well and see
> everything.
>
> So I begin, if you don't mind, with a little personal reflection (with personal
> notation if you allow me).
>
> I assume that the length of a table is the sum of all the small lengths that
> form that table.
>
> In this, I am untouchable.
>
> My mathematical reasoning is good.
>
> I make no mistake.
>
> Neither the great physicists, nor the great mathematicians, nor the "cranks" can
> contradict me.
>
> What is stated well is not smearable.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?6jXcOrhmKSdnO_J-FwOtm474mhg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=6jXcOrhmKSdnO_J-FwOtm474mhg@jntp>
>
> So far, is good?
>
> R.H.

For more clarity, isn't it better to write like this?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Wbh1hLXEAhS0fe-stxdPGPEoPbw@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

--
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Wbh1hLXEAhS0fe-stxdPGPEoPbw@jntp>

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>
> In theories a little complicated for the simple person, it is very
> important to explain well. It is also very important to fully understand
> yourself what you are explaining.
>
> I pointed out that the way relativists assumed the proper time of a
> constantly accelerating rocket was not correct and that it came from a
> misuse of Leibniz integration.
>
> A good surgeon will then open the belly, and open wide: to see well and
> see everything.
>
> So I begin, if you don't mind, with a little personal reflection (with
> personal notation if you allow me).
>
> I assume that the length of a table is the sum of all the small lengths
> that form that table.
>
> In this, I am untouchable.
>
> My mathematical reasoning is good.
>
> I make no mistake.
>
> Neither the great physicists, nor the great mathematicians, nor the
> "cranks" can contradict me.

Let’s take a step back.

If you exert a force to stretch a spring, you will perform work on the
spring, storing the energy in the spring as potential energy. The work is
the force you apply, multiplied by the distance the spring is stretched in
the direction of that force. All well and good?

If a spring is already stretched an amount X, the force you need to exert
to stretch it a bit further is kx, where k is the stiffness of the spring.

Now, if you stretch it from x=0 to X=A, the amount of energy stored will
not be kA^2 but kA^2/2. Explain that factor of 2.

>
> What is stated well is not smearable.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?6jXcOrhmKSdnO_J-FwOtm474mhg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=6jXcOrhmKSdnO_J-FwOtm474mhg@jntp>
>
> So far, is good?
>
> R.H.
>

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