Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Never make anything simple and efficient when a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.


tech / sci.physics.relativity / Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

SubjectAuthor
* [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
+- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeMaciej Wozniak
+* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeStan Fultoni
|+* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeMaciej Wozniak
||`- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|`* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
| `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeStan Fultoni
|  +- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeMaciej Wozniak
|  `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|   `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeStan Fultoni
|    `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|     `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeStan Fultoni
|      `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|       `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeStan Fultoni
|        `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|         `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeStan Fultoni
|          `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|           `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeStan Fultoni
|            +* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|            |+* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeStan Fultoni
|            ||`* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|            || +- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justerotchm
|            || `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeStan Fultoni
|            ||  `- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|            |`- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justerotchm
|            `- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
+* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justePython
|+- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeMaciej Wozniak
|+- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
|`* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
| +* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justePython
| |`* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
| | `* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justePython
| |  `- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel
| `- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeMaciej Wozniak
`* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeMikko
 +* Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeJ. J. Lodder
 |`- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeMaciej Wozniak
 `- Re: [SR] Trouver le mot justeRichard Hachel

Pages:12
Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90327&group=sci.physics.relativity#90327

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <713838ef-b807-4542-8334-2f8876eb9119n@googlegroups.com>
<nlMlJ61vGvGEcs4pRi_rcBw43oo@jntp> <f3f0f255-e894-409e-9a2e-bb5cb58c389an@googlegroups.com>
<emzhjcwHKEzqKhKftjPzI4YJsSk@jntp> <b5ec9fe8-88d8-41a9-92d1-ce9d8a685dd9n@googlegroups.com>
<RCVxC4Lhaq1iNqzI7Zjr5LiEyBo@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: kd_-MTiMCNvixaVC_Ggin4G3ip4
JNTP-ThreadID: W0cJ6f7rXvgffeoP7IP3sc6mF2I
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Sun, 15 May 22 22:19:44 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.67 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="314bd3f8e92196ce7e6a5ac25bb2618076139bd1"; logging-data="2022-05-15T22:19:44Z/6902071"; 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 - Sun, 15 May 2022 22:19 UTC

Le 16/05/2022 à 00:04, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>
> . . tau1 - tau0 = sqrt[(t1-t0)^2 - (x1-x0)^2] ... ?
> . . tau2 - tau1 = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2] ... ?
> . . tau2 - tau0 = sqrt[(t2-t0)^2 - (x2-x0)^2] ... ?

tau0.

Ca me rappelle les prêts à taux zéro, LOL.

Nan, sans rire, tu y crois aux conneries que tu racontes?

tau0.

E1 is the start event of the rocket or particle.

E2 is the mid-course event (in proper time; not in distance, huh) of the
rocket
or the particle

E3 is the arrival event of the rocket or particle.

What does E0 bring to the problem?

LOL.

> Do you see now that your beliefs are incoherent and insane?

Look at your post in a mirror.

Tu verras que c'est toi qui dis des conneries.

R.H.

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90328&group=sci.physics.relativity#90328

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:38b:b0:2f3:dcce:a7a3 with SMTP id j11-20020a05622a038b00b002f3dccea7a3mr13302633qtx.439.1652655036265;
Sun, 15 May 2022 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d0e:b0:45a:7c41:52a9 with SMTP id
14-20020a0562140d0e00b0045a7c4152a9mr12823789qvh.41.1652655036043; Sun, 15
May 2022 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.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: Sun, 15 May 2022 15:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:601:1700:7df0:adc6:c9ee:a437:f3eb;
posting-account=mPYpNwoAAADYT6u25jo4wRqpXbzZAAhf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:601:1700:7df0:adc6:c9ee:a437:f3eb
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <713838ef-b807-4542-8334-2f8876eb9119n@googlegroups.com>
<nlMlJ61vGvGEcs4pRi_rcBw43oo@jntp> <f3f0f255-e894-409e-9a2e-bb5cb58c389an@googlegroups.com>
<emzhjcwHKEzqKhKftjPzI4YJsSk@jntp> <b5ec9fe8-88d8-41a9-92d1-ce9d8a685dd9n@googlegroups.com>
<RCVxC4Lhaq1iNqzI7Zjr5LiEyBo@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
From: fultonis...@gmail.com (Stan Fultoni)
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 22:50:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4057
 by: Stan Fultoni - Sun, 15 May 2022 22:50 UTC

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 3:19:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > . . tau1 - tau0 = sqrt[(t1-t0)^2 - (x1-x0)^2] ... ?
> > . . tau2 - tau1 = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2] ... ?
> > . . tau2 - tau0 = sqrt[(t2-t0)^2 - (x2-x0)^2] ... ?

Please answer the question.

> E1 is the start event of the rocket or particle.

Nope. Remember, you have already agreed that the elapsed time for an unaccelerated path between two given events xi,ti and xj,tj is sqrt[(tj-ti)^2 - (xj-xi)^2] . This applies to any two (timelike separated) events. Remember?

You've been shown that this leads to contradiction with your belief that the elapsed proper time along a path of constant acceleration between those two events is the same, so you simply begin lying and denying that the time for the unaccelerated path is what you just admitted it was.

Remember, the two propositions are:
(1) The elapsed proper time along a uniform path (no acceleration) between two given events ei and ej is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)].
(2) The elapsed proper time along a path undergoing constant proper acceleration between two given events equals the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated path between those two events.

You first said both were true, then when I showed you the contradiction, you said (1) was false, but then when I asked you to tell me that the elapsed time was for the unaccelerated path, you re-affirmed that (1) is true. And now you go back to saying (1) is false. And if I ask you again to tell me what is the elapsed time for the unaccelerated path, you will re-affirm (1), but then you will deny it, and then you will re-affirm it, and so on.

Now do you understand the insanity of your self-contradictory claims?

> What does E0 bring to the problem?

It clues you in to the fact that the indices of the events do not change the laws of physics. The indices do not signify anything about being "absolutely special". The point is that you have agreed with (1), regardless of the indices i and j. Those are just labels. Proposition (1) applies to any two timelike separated events, as you yourself affirmed (and then denied, and then affirmed, and then denied....) You are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.

Now do you understand why your claims are self-contradictory and insane?

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90329&group=sci.physics.relativity#90329

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.nntp4.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <f3f0f255-e894-409e-9a2e-bb5cb58c389an@googlegroups.com>
<emzhjcwHKEzqKhKftjPzI4YJsSk@jntp> <b5ec9fe8-88d8-41a9-92d1-ce9d8a685dd9n@googlegroups.com>
<RCVxC4Lhaq1iNqzI7Zjr5LiEyBo@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp> <dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: WzzNCMweBZgxlJ4O0KG3CtW1yQU
JNTP-ThreadID: W0cJ6f7rXvgffeoP7IP3sc6mF2I
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Sun, 15 May 22 23:39:24 +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="314bd3f8e92196ce7e6a5ac25bb2618076139bd1"; logging-data="2022-05-15T23:39:24Z/6902265"; 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 - Sun, 15 May 2022 23:39 UTC

Le 16/05/2022 à 00:50, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>> E1 is the start event of the rocket or particle.
>
> Nope. Remember, you have already agreed that the elapsed time for an
> unaccelerated path between two given events xi,ti and xj,tj is sqrt[(tj-ti)^2 -
> (xj-xi)^2] . This applies to any two (timelike separated) events. Remember?
>
> You've been shown that this leads to contradiction with your belief that the
> elapsed proper time along a path of constant acceleration between those two events
> is the same, so you simply begin lying and denying that the time for the
> unaccelerated path is what you just admitted it was.
>
> Remember, the two propositions are:
> (1) The elapsed proper time along a uniform path (no acceleration) between two
> given events ei and ej is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)].
> (2) The elapsed proper time along a path undergoing constant proper acceleration
> between two given events equals the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated
> path between those two events.
>
> You first said both were true, then when I showed you the contradiction, you
> said (1) was false, but then when I asked you to tell me that the elapsed time was
> for the unaccelerated path, you re-affirmed that (1) is true. And now you go back
> to saying (1) is false. And if I ask you again to tell me what is the elapsed
> time for the unaccelerated path, you will re-affirm (1), but then you will deny
> it, and then you will re-affirm it, and so on.

Yes, but for that, the two rockets MUST go off together at the same time.

The watches of the two rockets are triggered at this instant, and the
watches are triggered when they arrive simultaneously at the final point.

This is the problem that was posed.

He was very clear.

I call To the time measured in the observing frame.

This time is obviously the same for the two rockets since by definition we
say that they depart together and arrive together.

The first rocket is called rocket 1.

The second rocket is called rocket 2.

We therefore have To1=To2 by definition.

We are going to be interested in Tr1 and Tr2 the proper times of the two
rockets.

The extraordinary Python tells us that Tr1 will be different from Tr2
since one of the rockets makes the journey in constant mode, and the other
in uniformly accelerated mode).

Which I categorically refute.

The two proper times will be the same.

And in this specific case, To²=Tr²+Et²

It's childishly simple.

Now let's be clear. I said that it worked for all the distances that we
could invent in this way.

All.

But you read me correctly: in this way, i.e. with a simultaneous start AT
REST (at least for the rocket which will accelerate, for the other, it
doesn't matter, and a simultaneous arrival.

What stops you here?

What don't you understand?

The fact that it's not in the books?

But that's what I'm trying to tell you again.

It's NOT in your books.

R.H.

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<X9qxwNWyfpLvC8xsVeAQDxjEcjQ@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90331&group=sci.physics.relativity#90331

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <X9qxwNWyfpLvC8xsVeAQDxjEcjQ@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <f3f0f255-e894-409e-9a2e-bb5cb58c389an@googlegroups.com>
<emzhjcwHKEzqKhKftjPzI4YJsSk@jntp> <b5ec9fe8-88d8-41a9-92d1-ce9d8a685dd9n@googlegroups.com>
<RCVxC4Lhaq1iNqzI7Zjr5LiEyBo@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp> <dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: 7hdrx_ERhNKZ8IJcbU46aBFFAd8
JNTP-ThreadID: W0cJ6f7rXvgffeoP7IP3sc6mF2I
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=X9qxwNWyfpLvC8xsVeAQDxjEcjQ@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Sun, 15 May 22 23:55:39 +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="314bd3f8e92196ce7e6a5ac25bb2618076139bd1"; logging-data="2022-05-15T23:55:39Z/6902295"; 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 - Sun, 15 May 2022 23:55 UTC

Le 16/05/2022 à 00:50, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

>
>> What does E0 bring to the problem?
>
> It clues you in to the fact that the indices of the events do not change the
> laws of physics. The indices do not signify anything about being "absolutely
> special". The point is that you have agreed with (1), regardless of the indices i
> and j. Those are just labels. Proposition (1) applies to any two timelike
> separated events, as you yourself affirmed (and then denied, and then affirmed,
> and then denied....) You are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.
>

Event clues may not change the laws of physics, but their position does.

The Pythagorean theorem has been the same for four thousand years.

It is unchanging.

But if I apply it to three aligned points, it doesn't work.

The example I am giving you is of the same ilk.

If we measure the acceleration speeds according to a stationary start, we
find that a very practicable law for calculating lots of things.
for example x=1/2 a Tr²
or Vr=a.Tr

But if we give the rocket an initial speed, then obviously these two
equations no longer work.

And that's what you do by setting t3-t2, t4-t3 or t4-t2.

This is only valid for t2-t1, t3-t1, t4-t1, t5-t1 and so on.

t1 being the triggering of the watch proper to the rocket accelerated at
the start and only at the start.

I gave the equations to follow for the other t2-t3, t3-t4, t4-t5 on the
photograph of the handwritten page.

Because there, it is not necessary any more to apply the starting
equation.

The proper times are never identical again.

They are identical only once.

When the two rockets that separated at E1 recross at the same joint point
at E2 (or E3 if you take E3, or E4 if you take E4).

So the equation is valid, but only for the cases where the two rockets are
conjoined at the start and at the finish.

Its good?

The divine light of Saint Hachel enters your mind?

R.H.

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<f4089508-ec19-45ea-9391-fc059d41ddb5n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90332&group=sci.physics.relativity#90332

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5bd0:0:b0:2f3:bb55:4612 with SMTP id b16-20020ac85bd0000000b002f3bb554612mr13580633qtb.391.1652659318539;
Sun, 15 May 2022 17:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1042:b0:461:cc36:af78 with SMTP id
l2-20020a056214104200b00461cc36af78mr2687323qvr.129.1652659318367; Sun, 15
May 2022 17:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Sun, 15 May 2022 17:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:601:1700:7df0:d5e3:61e9:12cb:8abb;
posting-account=mPYpNwoAAADYT6u25jo4wRqpXbzZAAhf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:601:1700:7df0:d5e3:61e9:12cb:8abb
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <f3f0f255-e894-409e-9a2e-bb5cb58c389an@googlegroups.com>
<emzhjcwHKEzqKhKftjPzI4YJsSk@jntp> <b5ec9fe8-88d8-41a9-92d1-ce9d8a685dd9n@googlegroups.com>
<RCVxC4Lhaq1iNqzI7Zjr5LiEyBo@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp> <dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>
<ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f4089508-ec19-45ea-9391-fc059d41ddb5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
From: fultonis...@gmail.com (Stan Fultoni)
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 00:01:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Stan Fultoni - Mon, 16 May 2022 00:01 UTC

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 4:39:27 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> E1 is the start event of the rocket or particle.
> >
> > Nope. Remember, you have already agreed that the elapsed time for an
> > unaccelerated path between two given events xi,ti and xj,tj is sqrt[(tj-ti)^2 -
> > (xj-xi)^2] . This applies to any two (timelike separated) events. Remember?
> >
> > You've been shown that this leads to contradiction with your belief that the
> > elapsed proper time along a path of constant acceleration between those two events
> > is the same, so you simply begin lying and denying that the time for the
> > unaccelerated path is what you just admitted it was.
> >
> > Remember, the two propositions are:
> > (1) The elapsed proper time along a uniform path (no acceleration) between two
> > given events ei and ej is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)].
> > (2) The elapsed proper time along a path undergoing constant proper acceleration
> > between two given events equals the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated
> > path between those two events.
> >
> > You first said both were true, then when I showed you the contradiction, you
> > said (1) was false, but then when I asked you to tell me that the elapsed time was
> > for the unaccelerated path, you re-affirmed that (1) is true. And now you go back
> > to saying (1) is false. And if I ask you again to tell me what is the elapsed
> > time for the unaccelerated path, you will re-affirm (1), but then you will deny
> > it, and then you will re-affirm it, and so on.
>
> Yes, but for that, the two rockets MUST go off together at the same time.

You're confusing propositions (1) and (2). Proposition (1) does not involve any accelerations at all, it simply says that the elapsed proper time along the unaccelerated path from any given event xi,ti to any other (time-like separated) event xj,tj is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)]. Your first agreed with this, then disagreed, then agreed, than disagreed, and so on. Let's suppose for a moment that you have become sane, and you agree that proposition (1) is indeed true. Remember, this doesn't involve any accelerating rockets, and there is no special events that make this proposition sometimes true and sometimes false. It is always true for any two time-like separated events.

Now we consider Proposition (2), which is your claim that the elapsed proper time along an accelerating path between two given events equals the elapsed proper time along the unaccelerated path between those two events (which is given by Proposition (1)). This leads to a contradiction, as illustrated by the three equations described previously.

So, if you want to maintain (2), you must deny (1), but you can't deny (1), because it is the fundamental proposition that you yourself have repeatedly affirmed. So your beliefs are self-contradictory and insane. Understand?

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<Uem_GACVA4GZV6k9h-vuFiRswpU@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90334&group=sci.physics.relativity#90334

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.niel.me!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <Uem_GACVA4GZV6k9h-vuFiRswpU@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <b5ec9fe8-88d8-41a9-92d1-ce9d8a685dd9n@googlegroups.com>
<RCVxC4Lhaq1iNqzI7Zjr5LiEyBo@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp> <dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>
<ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp> <f4089508-ec19-45ea-9391-fc059d41ddb5n@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: Q4zqQo_xUbFBKcBsYyGg17wzeYA
JNTP-ThreadID: W0cJ6f7rXvgffeoP7IP3sc6mF2I
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Uem_GACVA4GZV6k9h-vuFiRswpU@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Mon, 16 May 22 00:18:52 +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="314bd3f8e92196ce7e6a5ac25bb2618076139bd1"; logging-data="2022-05-16T00:18:52Z/6902352"; 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 - Mon, 16 May 2022 00:18 UTC

Le 16/05/2022 à 02:01, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 4:39:27 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> >> E1 is the start event of the rocket or particle.
>> >
>> > Nope. Remember, you have already agreed that the elapsed time for an
>> > unaccelerated path between two given events xi,ti and xj,tj is sqrt[(tj-ti)^2
>> -
>> > (xj-xi)^2] . This applies to any two (timelike separated) events. Remember?
>> >
>> > You've been shown that this leads to contradiction with your belief that the
>> > elapsed proper time along a path of constant acceleration between those two
>> events
>> > is the same, so you simply begin lying and denying that the time for the
>> > unaccelerated path is what you just admitted it was.
>> >
>> > Remember, the two propositions are:
>> > (1) The elapsed proper time along a uniform path (no acceleration) between two
>>
>> > given events ei and ej is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)].
>> > (2) The elapsed proper time along a path undergoing constant proper
>> acceleration
>> > between two given events equals the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated
>>
>> > path between those two events.
>> >
>> > You first said both were true, then when I showed you the contradiction, you
>> > said (1) was false, but then when I asked you to tell me that the elapsed time
>> was
>> > for the unaccelerated path, you re-affirmed that (1) is true. And now you go
>> back
>> > to saying (1) is false. And if I ask you again to tell me what is the elapsed
>> > time for the unaccelerated path, you will re-affirm (1), but then you will
>> deny
>> > it, and then you will re-affirm it, and so on.
>>
>> Yes, but for that, the two rockets MUST go off together at the same time.
>
> You're confusing propositions (1) and (2). Proposition (1) does not involve any
> accelerations at all, it simply says that the elapsed proper time along the
> unaccelerated path from any given event xi,ti to any other (time-like separated)
> event xj,tj is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)]. Your first agreed with this, then
> disagreed, then agreed, than disagreed, and so on. Let's suppose for a moment
> that you have become sane, and you agree that proposition (1) is indeed true.
> Remember, this doesn't involve any accelerating rockets, and there is no special
> events that make this proposition sometimes true and sometimes false. It is
> always true for any two time-like separated events.
>
> Now we consider Proposition (2), which is your claim that the elapsed proper
> time along an accelerating path between two given events equals the elapsed proper
> time along the unaccelerated path between those two events (which is given by
> Proposition (1)). This leads to a contradiction, as illustrated by the three
> equations described previously.
>
> So, if you want to maintain (2), you must deny (1), but you can't deny (1),
> because it is the fundamental proposition that you yourself have repeatedly
> affirmed. So your beliefs are self-contradictory and insane. Understand?

Bon, je vois que vous faites exprès de ne rien comprendre.

Et sur ça, je suis désolé, mais je ne peux rien faire.

According to the holy proverb: "Richard Hachel could not give water to
donkeys that were not thirsty".

R.H.

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<37a8f794-cd17-4d43-a3c5-44c52dca62c9n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90335&group=sci.physics.relativity#90335

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:3cf:b0:2f3:ec70:4e72 with SMTP id k15-20020a05622a03cf00b002f3ec704e72mr13624401qtx.61.1652660751518;
Sun, 15 May 2022 17:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6786:0:b0:6a0:59f1:d8ae with SMTP id
b128-20020a376786000000b006a059f1d8aemr10441395qkc.649.1652660751323; Sun, 15
May 2022 17:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.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: Sun, 15 May 2022 17:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.160.32.227; posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <f3f0f255-e894-409e-9a2e-bb5cb58c389an@googlegroups.com>
<emzhjcwHKEzqKhKftjPzI4YJsSk@jntp> <b5ec9fe8-88d8-41a9-92d1-ce9d8a685dd9n@googlegroups.com>
<RCVxC4Lhaq1iNqzI7Zjr5LiEyBo@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp> <dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>
<ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <37a8f794-cd17-4d43-a3c5-44c52dca62c9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
From: rot...@gmail.com (rotchm)
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 00:25:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2084
 by: rotchm - Mon, 16 May 2022 00:25 UTC

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/05/2022 à 00:50, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> >> E1 is the start event of the rocket or particle.
> >
> > Nope. Remember, you have already agreed that the elapsed time for an
> > unaccelerated path between two given events xi,ti and xj,tj is sqrt[(tj-ti)^2 -
> > (xj-xi)^2] . This applies to any two (timelike separated) events. Remember?

No answer? Can you answer that one?

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<13d12d55-c2aa-4761-88ba-285044b16182n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90336&group=sci.physics.relativity#90336

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1007:b0:2f3:ce52:25cb with SMTP id d7-20020a05622a100700b002f3ce5225cbmr13212619qte.575.1652660848645;
Sun, 15 May 2022 17:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5909:0:b0:2f3:d35f:cb8e with SMTP id
9-20020ac85909000000b002f3d35fcb8emr13617730qty.569.1652660848502; Sun, 15
May 2022 17:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.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: Sun, 15 May 2022 17:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Uem_GACVA4GZV6k9h-vuFiRswpU@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.160.32.227; posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <b5ec9fe8-88d8-41a9-92d1-ce9d8a685dd9n@googlegroups.com>
<RCVxC4Lhaq1iNqzI7Zjr5LiEyBo@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp> <dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>
<ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp> <f4089508-ec19-45ea-9391-fc059d41ddb5n@googlegroups.com>
<Uem_GACVA4GZV6k9h-vuFiRswpU@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <13d12d55-c2aa-4761-88ba-285044b16182n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
From: rot...@gmail.com (rotchm)
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 00:27:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2121
 by: rotchm - Mon, 16 May 2022 00:27 UTC

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:18:55 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> > So, if you want to maintain (2), you must deny (1), but you can't deny (1),
> > because it is the fundamental proposition that you yourself have repeatedly
> > affirmed. So your beliefs are self-contradictory and insane. Understand?
> Bon, je vois que vous faites exprès de ne rien comprendre.

Your reply is in the wrong language.
Be consistent: if you are discussing an English, continue the discussion in English.

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<b8ee1993-9c68-4ebf-b941-b6bb1d5e5edan@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90338&group=sci.physics.relativity#90338

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d0c:b0:45b:3c7:fd68 with SMTP id 12-20020a0562140d0c00b0045b03c7fd68mr13519739qvh.77.1652661508935;
Sun, 15 May 2022 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7d11:0:b0:2f7:917a:e365 with SMTP id
g17-20020ac87d11000000b002f7917ae365mr5652379qtb.247.1652661508739; Sun, 15
May 2022 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.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: Sun, 15 May 2022 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Uem_GACVA4GZV6k9h-vuFiRswpU@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:601:1700:7df0:d5e3:61e9:12cb:8abb;
posting-account=mPYpNwoAAADYT6u25jo4wRqpXbzZAAhf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:601:1700:7df0:d5e3:61e9:12cb:8abb
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <b5ec9fe8-88d8-41a9-92d1-ce9d8a685dd9n@googlegroups.com>
<RCVxC4Lhaq1iNqzI7Zjr5LiEyBo@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp> <dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>
<ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp> <f4089508-ec19-45ea-9391-fc059d41ddb5n@googlegroups.com>
<Uem_GACVA4GZV6k9h-vuFiRswpU@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b8ee1993-9c68-4ebf-b941-b6bb1d5e5edan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
From: fultonis...@gmail.com (Stan Fultoni)
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 00:38:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 5997
 by: Stan Fultoni - Mon, 16 May 2022 00:38 UTC

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/05/2022 à 02:01, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 4:39:27 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> >> E1 is the start event of the rocket or particle.
> >> >
> >> > Nope. Remember, you have already agreed that the elapsed time for an
> >> > unaccelerated path between two given events xi,ti and xj,tj is sqrt[(tj-ti)^2
> >> -
> >> > (xj-xi)^2] . This applies to any two (timelike separated) events. Remember?
> >> >
> >> > You've been shown that this leads to contradiction with your belief that the
> >> > elapsed proper time along a path of constant acceleration between those two
> >> events
> >> > is the same, so you simply begin lying and denying that the time for the
> >> > unaccelerated path is what you just admitted it was.
> >> >
> >> > Remember, the two propositions are:
> >> > (1) The elapsed proper time along a uniform path (no acceleration) between two
> >>
> >> > given events ei and ej is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)].
> >> > (2) The elapsed proper time along a path undergoing constant proper
> >> acceleration
> >> > between two given events equals the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated
> >>
> >> > path between those two events.
> >> >
> >> > You first said both were true, then when I showed you the contradiction, you
> >> > said (1) was false, but then when I asked you to tell me that the elapsed time
> >> was
> >> > for the unaccelerated path, you re-affirmed that (1) is true. And now you go
> >> back
> >> > to saying (1) is false. And if I ask you again to tell me what is the elapsed
> >> > time for the unaccelerated path, you will re-affirm (1), but then you will
> >> deny
> >> > it, and then you will re-affirm it, and so on.
> >>
> >> Yes, but for that, the two rockets MUST go off together at the same time.
> >
> > You're confusing propositions (1) and (2). Proposition (1) does not involve any
> > accelerations at all, it simply says that the elapsed proper time along the
> > unaccelerated path from any given event xi,ti to any other (time-like separated)
> > event xj,tj is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)]. Your first agreed with this, then
> > disagreed, then agreed, than disagreed, and so on. Let's suppose for a moment
> > that you have become sane, and you agree that proposition (1) is indeed true.
> > Remember, this doesn't involve any accelerating rockets, and there is no special
> > events that make this proposition sometimes true and sometimes false. It is
> > always true for any two time-like separated events.
> >
> > Now we consider Proposition (2), which is your claim that the elapsed proper
> > time along an accelerating path between two given events equals the elapsed proper
> > time along the unaccelerated path between those two events (which is given by
> > Proposition (1)). This leads to a contradiction, as illustrated by the three
> > equations described previously.
> >
> > So, if you want to maintain (2), you must deny (1), but you can't deny (1),
> > because it is the fundamental proposition that you yourself have repeatedly
> > affirmed. So your beliefs are self-contradictory and insane. Understand?
>
> Bon, je vois que vous faites exprès de ne rien comprendre.
> Et sur ça, je suis désolé, mais je ne peux rien faire.

That isn't an answer. I've explained the self-contradiction in your claims.. You see, your denial of modern science has nothing to do with acceleration at all. You disagree with proposition (1), which has nothing to do with acceleration. It simply gives the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerating path between two events. But it's even worse, because when you are asked what you would put in place of (1), you simply re-affirm (1)... only to re-deny it moments later...

Your beliefs are self-evidently fallacious and self-contradictory. This is obvious to everyone who has looked at what you post. Now you will simply run away, as all crackpots do.

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<5MInS6QC7eVt11vZBUJOHcpcxcs@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90370&group=sci.physics.relativity#90370

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <5MInS6QC7eVt11vZBUJOHcpcxcs@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <f8ece962-1234-4a5b-86dd-feaa35dd70d9n@googlegroups.com>
<fVRZhJCxrVn-pEvhKackMKo5cWs@jntp> <587c449a-0dc1-4c3f-808d-2f7bccbde2adn@googlegroups.com>
<b-xF146CxCMVCAR0VMBzzjbd-ts@jntp> <dcbf5af7-49e0-434a-8e9f-4368c3d09a82n@googlegroups.com>
<ze1xCYI_R6ZbrmGWvbg-VRz5Ln4@jntp> <f4089508-ec19-45ea-9391-fc059d41ddb5n@googlegroups.com>
<Uem_GACVA4GZV6k9h-vuFiRswpU@jntp> <b8ee1993-9c68-4ebf-b941-b6bb1d5e5edan@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: rtS-_HJiOki4VR1EKdPxTlBK5YU
JNTP-ThreadID: W0cJ6f7rXvgffeoP7IP3sc6mF2I
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=5MInS6QC7eVt11vZBUJOHcpcxcs@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Mon, 16 May 22 11:29:41 +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="0ee0fe929288e508c02d8e77c37baf06cb58f00a"; logging-data="2022-05-16T11:29:41Z/6903331"; 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 - Mon, 16 May 2022 11:29 UTC

Le 16/05/2022 à 02:38, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> That isn't an answer. I've explained the self-contradiction in your claims.
> You see, your denial of modern science has nothing to do with acceleration at all.
> You disagree with proposition (1), which has nothing to do with acceleration. It
> simply gives the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerating path between two
> events. But it's even worse, because when you are asked what you would put in
> place of (1), you simply re-affirm (1)... only to re-deny it moments later...
>
> Your beliefs are self-evidently fallacious and self-contradictory. This is
> obvious to everyone who has looked at what you post. Now you will simply run
> away, as all crackpots do.

No, of course not, I'm not going to run away.

I am neither a crackpot, nor a thug, nor a troll, nor a bandit.

Obviously you are not either.

I think the hardest thing is to tune two men (or a married couple) when
both are right at the same time.

You have to find out why they are both right, and what is wrong with the
two reasonings that seem contradictory.

It's a bit like asking someone to type in a password.

And we show him an image: on the image there is a yellow fruit, round,
which looks like an orange, and whose sour flavor we all know. The person
therefore types the password that they believe to be the correct one and
types C I T R O N.

But it does not work.

It says "invalid password"

However, this is what he saw in the photo.

Why does the password not work?

R.H.

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<t5tqhc$b6b$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90373&group=sci.physics.relativity#90373

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 18:27:40 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <t5tqhc$b6b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@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="374055e95637041ed4dccb40b15b57e9";
logging-data="11467"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ZgD/yR46W5Bmv1gDETd4B"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9KqvlhLlmANzAvfJa596QHa/2jo=
 by: Mikko - Mon, 16 May 2022 15:27 UTC

On 2022-05-15 17:00:04 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> How to call these two terms?
> Local time?
Already in use

> Referential time?
Perhaps

> Observable time?
Too generic as all useful times are observable

> Own time?
Sounds like a synonym to "proper time"

> Descent time?
Sounds too specific, only for downwards movement

> Chronotropy?
Sounds more like a feature of something than a time

> Anisochronous time?
Contradictory as "anisochronous" is a property of a set of events
or something that identifies a set of events, meaning that those
events are not simultaneus, whereas the set of events idenfied by
a time are simultaneous

Mikko

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<1ps26j0.1fg7qkftl0q8tN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90375&group=sci.physics.relativity#90375

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 17:51:02 +0200
Organization: De Ster
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <1ps26j0.1fg7qkftl0q8tN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <t5tqhc$b6b$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jjlax32@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fb79462ce26107fb798e433fd6822c23";
logging-data="22533"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+j6cPJytjLAMncAqfSmHbm5r9I4KvH5mU="
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.10.5)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XjcfxwgogZViEi6d4Vy35pPRawI=
 by: J. J. Lodder - Mon, 16 May 2022 15:51 UTC

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2022-05-15 17:00:04 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
> > How to call these two terms?
> > Local time?
> Already in use
>
> > Referential time?
> Perhaps
>
> > Observable time?
> Too generic as all useful times are observable
>
> > Own time?
> Sounds like a synonym to "proper time"
>
> > Descent time?
> Sounds too specific, only for downwards movement
>
> > Chronotropy?
> Sounds more like a feature of something than a time
>
> > Anisochronous time?
> Contradictory as "anisochronous" is a property of a set of events
> or something that identifies a set of events, meaning that those
> events are not simultaneus, whereas the set of events idenfied by
> a time are simultaneous

Yes, you are right.
It's nonsense all the way.
Science doesn't depend on the 'proper' use of words,

Jan

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<2b8e44bf-14bd-4f06-a345-f1d27ad8aa63n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90377&group=sci.physics.relativity#90377

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:98c4:0:b0:6a0:b47b:2ec6 with SMTP id a187-20020a3798c4000000b006a0b47b2ec6mr13477120qke.730.1652722733651;
Mon, 16 May 2022 10:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5e8c:0:b0:461:c740:23a7 with SMTP id
jl12-20020ad45e8c000000b00461c74023a7mr7430495qvb.19.1652722733488; Mon, 16
May 2022 10:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.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, 16 May 2022 10:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1ps26j0.1fg7qkftl0q8tN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.25.5.69; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.25.5.69
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <t5tqhc$b6b$1@dont-email.me> <1ps26j0.1fg7qkftl0q8tN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2b8e44bf-14bd-4f06-a345-f1d27ad8aa63n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 17:38:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1446
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Mon, 16 May 2022 17:38 UTC

On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 17:51:05 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Yes, you are right.
> It's nonsense all the way.
> Science doesn't depend on the 'proper' use of words,

Because idiot JJ has said, and he can't be wrong like
ordinary mortal worms sometimes are.

Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste

<meC0tIB1cvLPCvhXhKBjIeD6Nvs@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90379&group=sci.physics.relativity#90379

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <meC0tIB1cvLPCvhXhKBjIeD6Nvs@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Trouver le mot juste
References: <F02wWoCvXSZgbE1xOKLrTwgp_uM@jntp> <t5tqhc$b6b$1@dont-email.me>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: rEzEVLRdsMt3GDBYjhnClNjqeNk
JNTP-ThreadID: W0cJ6f7rXvgffeoP7IP3sc6mF2I
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=meC0tIB1cvLPCvhXhKBjIeD6Nvs@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Mon, 16 May 22 18:13:32 +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="0ee0fe929288e508c02d8e77c37baf06cb58f00a"; logging-data="2022-05-16T18:13:32Z/6904337"; 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 - Mon, 16 May 2022 18:13 UTC

Le 16/05/2022 à 17:27, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2022-05-15 17:00:04 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> How to call these two terms?
>> Local time?
> Already in use
>
>> Referential time?
> Perhaps
>
>> Observable time?
> Too generic as all useful times are observable
>
>> Own time?
> Sounds like a synonym to "proper time"
>
>> Descent time?
> Sounds too specific, only for downwards movement
>
>> Chronotropy?
> Sounds more like a feature of something than a time
>
>> Anisochronous time?
> Contradictory as "anisochronous" is a property of a set of events
> or something that identifies a set of events, meaning that those
> events are not simultaneus, whereas the set of events idenfied by
> a time are simultaneous
>
> Mikko

Merci.

R.H.

Pages:12
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor