Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.


tech / sci.physics.relativity / Re: That's what I think.

SubjectAuthor
* That's what I think.Richard Hachel
+* Re: That's what I think.Stan Fultoni
|`- Re: That's what I think.Richard Hachel
+- Re: That's what I think.Mikko
+* Re: That's what I think.Python
|`- Re: That's what I think.Maciej Wozniak
+- Re: That's what I think.Sylvia Else
`- Re: That's what I think.mitchr...@gmail.com

1
That's what I think.

<66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89808&group=sci.physics.relativity#89808

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: That's what I think.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: zZfbzjKtGbt3bKF_3vIFUPht5pc
JNTP-ThreadID: n6XgFLt-cqziZiM4wOtafRFh1fY
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Sat, 07 May 22 11:54:31 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.54 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="a2ee16e5a0ce0224305d17fc8b99df711f07ffbf"; logging-data="2022-05-07T11:54:31Z/6876170"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@news2.nemoweb.net"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: r.hac...@tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
 by: Richard Hachel - Sat, 7 May 2022 11:54 UTC

In exact science itself, there are many small pitfalls.

Example of a trap:

it is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-Tr to make it Tr.

We denote Tr=∫ΔTr (“my” notation)

It is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-To to make To.

To=∫ΔTo

In short, it is good to consider that all the parts of a thing form the
thing.

It is also good to know Leibniz's theory of integral calculus, and how he
does it.

All these things I confirm and say.

It is good to know that in accelerated relativistic circles there is a
formula that scientists have found and that Richard Hachel (that's me) has
accredited it, too.

This correct formula is To=(x/c)sqrt(1+2c²/ax).

There is no going back.

But where something terrible will happen is when scientists will want to
integrate ΔTr=ΔTo.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).

Everything will then sink into mathematical horror.

The whole of humanity is going to make a huge mistake, which is very
similar to that of Newton, when he was taken to task by Berkeley on his
calculation of infinitesimals.

Berkeley was right. Nexton's calculation was mathematically and
experimentally wrong.

We have the same thing when relativists calculate the proper time of
relativistic particles or objects.

Their result is then "underside".

That's why they don't find Tr=sqrt(2x/a) as they should find but a bogus
sum integral calculus because the way they do it is bogus (and I'll
explain why soon).

R.H.

Re: That's what I think.

<394bb3fd-345f-42c0-a58e-dd6ab6e065f7n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89816&group=sci.physics.relativity#89816

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:16c2:b0:69f:ca37:f6b5 with SMTP id a2-20020a05620a16c200b0069fca37f6b5mr6352555qkn.48.1651934740141;
Sat, 07 May 2022 07:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4b61:0:b0:455:e0bc:9ef7 with SMTP id
m1-20020ad44b61000000b00455e0bc9ef7mr7077072qvx.112.1651934739956; Sat, 07
May 2022 07:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 07:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:601:1700:7df0:4d98:154d:58c8:5b2c;
posting-account=mPYpNwoAAADYT6u25jo4wRqpXbzZAAhf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:601:1700:7df0:4d98:154d:58c8:5b2c
References: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <394bb3fd-345f-42c0-a58e-dd6ab6e065f7n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: That's what I think.
From: fultonis...@gmail.com (Stan Fultoni)
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 14:45:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Stan Fultoni - Sat, 7 May 2022 14:45 UTC

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 4:54:34 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> It is good to consider that all the parts of a thing form the thing.

Right, and your beliefs are self-contradictory, because on one hand you
agree that a twin moving inertially from event A to event B ages more
than a twin who follows an accelerating path, but on the other hand
you deny this. So, you claim that the two elapsed times are both equal
and not equal. That's why your beliefs are self-contradictory. We covered
this before, remember?

Re: That's what I think.

<t560p1$snf$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89817&group=sci.physics.relativity#89817

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: That's what I think.
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 17:46:57 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <t560p1$snf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="95384408662b2b0d5582c08fbe0cd372";
logging-data="29423"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1S/tcpOkmA7azyLXXXt1Y"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HL0zdvkaCcLQf24MzIghQ3QsdrE=
 by: Mikko - Sat, 7 May 2022 14:46 UTC

On 2022-05-07 11:54:31 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> In exact science itself, there are many small pitfalls.
>
> Example of a trap:
>
> it is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-Tr to make it Tr.
>
> We denote Tr=∫ΔTr (“my” notation)

This opens one more trap because the structure of your notation
is different from the structure of the represented concept.
This trap is not a part of science.

> It is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-To to make To.

The standard notation is to use delta for things that can be summed
and d as a part of the integral notation.

> To=∫ΔTo
>
> In short, it is good to consider that all the parts of a thing form the thing.

> It is also good to know Leibniz's theory of integral calculus, and how
> he does it.

For some purposes, but usually the Riemann integral is good enough.

> All these things I confirm and say.
>
> It is good to know that in accelerated relativistic circles there is a
> formula that scientists have found and that Richard Hachel (that's me)
> has accredited it, too.
>
> This correct formula is To=(x/c)sqrt(1+2c²/ax).
>
> There is no going back.
>
> But where something terrible will happen is when scientists will want
> to integrate ΔTr=ΔTo.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).

Something terrible may happen if you try to integrate it.
But you should have limits in the integration in order to make it definite.

> Everything will then sink into mathematical horror.
>
> The whole of humanity is going to make a huge mistake,

You are. The rest of humanity will not folow.

> which is very similar to that of Newton, when he was taken to task by
> Berkeley on his calculation of infinitesimals.
>
> Berkeley was right. Nexton's calculation was mathematically and
> experimentally wrong.
>
> We have the same thing when relativists calculate the proper time of
> relativistic particles or objects.
>
> Their result is then "underside".
>
> That's why they don't find Tr=sqrt(2x/a)

Not that. Thy don'f find the wrong answer. Try again.
Powers are easy to integrate, so you may try Taylor series
if nothing else works. Or use rapidity instead of speed,
hyberbolic functions are easy to integrate, too.

Mikko

Re: That's what I think.

<y0XinNrzV6w2_CaTv3wrKjIy50E@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89823&group=sci.physics.relativity#89823

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <y0XinNrzV6w2_CaTv3wrKjIy50E@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: That's what I think.
References: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp> <394bb3fd-345f-42c0-a58e-dd6ab6e065f7n@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: e9TVWvK-VlFEWuwt1bF9mwvmFys
JNTP-ThreadID: n6XgFLt-cqziZiM4wOtafRFh1fY
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=y0XinNrzV6w2_CaTv3wrKjIy50E@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Sat, 07 May 22 16:05:43 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.54 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="a2ee16e5a0ce0224305d17fc8b99df711f07ffbf"; logging-data="2022-05-07T16:05:43Z/6876727"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@news2.nemoweb.net"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: r.hac...@tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
 by: Richard Hachel - Sat, 7 May 2022 16:05 UTC

Le 07/05/2022 à 16:45, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> Right, and your beliefs are self-contradictory, because on one hand you
> agree that a twin moving inertially from event A to event B ages more
> than a twin who follows an accelerating path, but on the other hand
> you deny this. So, you claim that the two elapsed times are both equal
> and not equal. That's why your beliefs are self-contradictory. We covered
> this before, remember?

Yes I remember.

My memory still goes that far.

R.H.

Re: That's what I think.

<6277ad80$0$18012$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89852&group=sci.physics.relativity#89852

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp1-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 13:46:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: That's what I think.
Content-Language: fr
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
From: pyt...@python.invalid (Python)
In-Reply-To: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <6277ad80$0$18012$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 May 2022 13:46:08 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.150.91.24
X-Trace: 1652010368 news-3.free.fr 18012 176.150.91.24:55758
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
 by: Python - Sun, 8 May 2022 11:46 UTC

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> In exact science itself, there are many small pitfalls.
>
> Example of a trap:
>
> it is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-Tr to make it Tr.
>
> We denote Tr=∫ΔTr (“my” notation)
>
> It is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-To to make To.
>
> To=∫ΔTo
>
> In short, it is good to consider that all the parts of a thing form the
> thing.
>
> It is also good to know Leibniz's theory of integral calculus, and how
> he does it.
>
> All these things I confirm and say.

You cannot confirm (or deny btw) because you are completely illiterate
in differential calculus Richard.

> It is good to know that in accelerated relativistic circles there is a
> formula that scientists have found and that Richard Hachel (that's me)
> has accredited it, too.
>
> This correct formula is To=(x/c)sqrt(1+2c²/ax).
>
> There is no going back.
>
> But where something terrible will happen is when scientists will want to
> integrate ΔTr=ΔTo.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
>
> Everything will then sink into mathematical horror.

A very simple gedankenexperiment implies that your formulas implies
no change of age in the twin parador scheme. You can put your head
in the sand, it won't change nothing to this FACT.

> The whole of humanity is going to make a huge mistake, which is very
> similar to that of Newton, when he was taken to task by Berkeley on his
> calculation of infinitesimals.
>
> Berkeley was right. Nexton's calculation was mathematically and
> experimentally wrong.

From what you've posted in fr.sci.math some time ago it is clear
that you do not understand what the controversy between Berkeley
and Newton was about.

Your claim about the mistake that Berkeley didn't spot is asinine.

By the way Berkeley was somewhat right in that calculus, as exposed
by Newton, was not correctly grounded. But during the next centuries,
especially XIXth and XXth, theses issues has been fixed.

But again, as you are 100% illiterate in calculus, Richard, you
cannot know.

Re: That's what I think.

<960fcc12-c61b-4ae2-a13d-12a4d0655b57n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89853&group=sci.physics.relativity#89853

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:59d3:0:b0:2f3:d7ee:2b54 with SMTP id f19-20020ac859d3000000b002f3d7ee2b54mr1744745qtf.290.1652012934587;
Sun, 08 May 2022 05:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:ac2:0:b0:69f:bb93:aac7 with SMTP id
185-20020a370ac2000000b0069fbb93aac7mr8917668qkk.551.1652012934439; Sun, 08
May 2022 05:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 05:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6277ad80$0$18012$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp> <6277ad80$0$18012$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <960fcc12-c61b-4ae2-a13d-12a4d0655b57n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: That's what I think.
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 12:28:54 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Sun, 8 May 2022 12:28 UTC

On Sunday, 8 May 2022 at 13:46:11 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > In exact science itself, there are many small pitfalls.
> >
> > Example of a trap:
> >
> > it is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-Tr to make it Tr.
> >
> > We denote Tr=∫ΔTr (“my” notation)
> >
> > It is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-To to make To.
> >
> > To=∫ΔTo
> >
> > In short, it is good to consider that all the parts of a thing form the
> > thing.
> >
> > It is also good to know Leibniz's theory of integral calculus, and how
> > he does it.
> >
> > All these things I confirm and say.
> You cannot confirm (or deny btw) because you are completely illiterate

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?

Re: That's what I think.

<jdps4sFpu4pU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89854&group=sci.physics.relativity#89854

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: That's what I think.
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 22:42:04 +1000
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <jdps4sFpu4pU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net u8wHINpy8IBUhf3/Tg/a1g7gRTbYIrUMlcbSsa69CuO73TilEM
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lZt+4x8p1yAf5tCgoGVHjZ4u2aA=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
 by: Sylvia Else - Sun, 8 May 2022 12:42 UTC

On 07-May-22 9:54 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> In exact science itself, there are many small pitfalls.
>
> Example of a trap:
>
> it is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-Tr to make it Tr.
>
> We denote Tr=∫ΔTr (“my” notation)
>
> It is good to integrate the sum of all small delta-To to make To.
>
> To=∫ΔTo
>
>

What about the constant?

Sylvia.

Re: That's what I think.

<85b38b42-bbbb-438f-88b2-a4fa2669f0d0n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89934&group=sci.physics.relativity#89934

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:46a1:b0:6a0:465e:ccca with SMTP id bq33-20020a05620a46a100b006a0465ecccamr12388840qkb.631.1652132449729;
Mon, 09 May 2022 14:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7c49:0:b0:2f3:db67:25d4 with SMTP id
o9-20020ac87c49000000b002f3db6725d4mr6470051qtv.336.1652132449546; Mon, 09
May 2022 14:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 14:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:1c0:c803:ab80:90ae:78f2:539b:556c;
posting-account=Dg6LkgkAAABl5NRBT4_iFEO1VO77GchW
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:1c0:c803:ab80:90ae:78f2:539b:556c
References: <66bOyhSSxjR7DuwXAybeYh1-_G8@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <85b38b42-bbbb-438f-88b2-a4fa2669f0d0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: That's what I think.
From: mitchrae...@gmail.com (mitchr...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 21:40:49 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1487
 by: mitchr...@gmail.com - Mon, 9 May 2022 21:40 UTC

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 4:54:34 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> In exact science itself, there are many small pitfalls.

That is the problem... there is no exact science.
Look at the uncertainty principle of QM.
If science is exact why is QM so uncertain?
This is true about all science and its measurements.

Mitchell Raemsch

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor