Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism.


tech / sci.physics.relativity / Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

SubjectAuthor
* [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Richard Hachel
+* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?rotchm
|`- Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
+* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Python
|+* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
||+* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Python
|||`* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
||| `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Python
|||  `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
|||   +* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
|||   |`* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Python
|||   | `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
|||   |  +* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Python
|||   |  |`* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
|||   |  | `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Python
|||   |  |  `- Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
|||   |  `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?J. J. Lodder
|||   |   `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
|||   |    `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?J. J. Lodder
|||   |     `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
|||   |      `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?J. J. Lodder
|||   |       `- Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Maciej Wozniak
|||   `- Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Python
||+- Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?rotchm
||`- Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Richard Hachel
|`* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Richard Hachel
| `- Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Python
`* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Stan Fultoni
 `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Richard Hachel
  `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Stan Fultoni
   `* Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Volney
    `- Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?Richard Hachel

Pages:12
[SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90516&group=sci.physics.relativity#90516

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: TfMPEbMaR9Y58mOUsno-_forkSo
JNTP-ThreadID: EKvJ3Hfqu1E3FoeImkC70YpGLfI
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 19 May 22 18:02:54 +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="fe2eacdbccdca2c9073534d4b8089b794a40c561"; logging-data="2022-05-19T18:02:54Z/6913347"; 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 - Thu, 19 May 2022 18:02 UTC

This equation, which I had posed for its beauty and its simplicity, a long
time ago already, then which I extended to uniformly accelerated
movements, provided that the departure of the protagonists takes place at
rest, was it correct?
I think so even more today.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp/Data.Media:1>

I think so especially since I understood why there was a huge bias in
relativity thinking in two of the most famous problems, one in constant
speed (Langevin's traveler), the other in uniformly accelerated speed (the
traveler of Tau Ceti).
As for the second problem (for the first it is ignorance of the spatial
zoom effect), it is in the a priori belief that one can consider that an
accelerated speed is only the putting small constant reference frames end
to end.
I believed it too, and I would have laughed if someone had told me
otherwise.
Yet the problem is there. It's not the same thing.
The equation to use is therefore not (but there, no one will want to
believe me) To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) as in thez uniform movements BUT
To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4 )Vr²/c²)

Thank you for your attention.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>

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.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<5f9d6d67-0a99-44e6-8cc2-6935533aa637n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90520&group=sci.physics.relativity#90520

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e42:0:b0:2f4:fc3c:b0c8 with SMTP id e2-20020ac84e42000000b002f4fc3cb0c8mr5293558qtw.684.1652990575450;
Thu, 19 May 2022 13:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2504:b0:461:d310:c18e with SMTP id
gf4-20020a056214250400b00461d310c18emr5515805qvb.98.1652990575219; Thu, 19
May 2022 13:02:55 -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: Thu, 19 May 2022 13:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.160.32.227; posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5f9d6d67-0a99-44e6-8cc2-6935533aa637n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: rot...@gmail.com (rotchm)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 20:02:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2555
 by: rotchm - Thu, 19 May 2022 20:02 UTC

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:02:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
<Diversions snipped>

Before you start a new thread, finish the old ones; You have unfinished threads:

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:41:33 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 17/05/2022 à 14:56, rotchm a écrit :
> > Given a reference frame which has been coordinated, two events are said to be
> > "simultaneous" when the clocks
> > located at the events in question indicate the same value.
> This is one of the biggest bullshit I've ever heard from a guy who
> understood the theory of relativity.

Its a definition. Don't you know what a definition is? Whats its purpose, its use?
No answer?

> Relativity says exactly the opposite, and if it does not say so, it is
> because it is badly explained.

I've now told/explained it to you. Now you should know.

> If I synchronize two similar watches and I separate them both in the same
> way and on the same distance, but opposite, they will NEVER simultaneously
> mark the same time between them.

You are confused. We were not talking about synching watches. We were talking about
the *simultaneity* of two *events*. See your first sentence of your OP.

No rebuttal?

"synchronize two similar watches and I separate them"
has nothing to do with your OP; it has nothing to do with simultaneity.
Try to remain on topic.

No rebuttal?

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<e7d325f3-5f80-4430-b110-fe05ad3ccf7fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90522&group=sci.physics.relativity#90522

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5aaa:0:b0:45a:a137:49d3 with SMTP id u10-20020ad45aaa000000b0045aa13749d3mr5456774qvg.61.1652992111486;
Thu, 19 May 2022 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:80a:b0:6a3:4a77:ebde with SMTP id
s10-20020a05620a080a00b006a34a77ebdemr407377qks.649.1652992111306; Thu, 19
May 2022 13:28:31 -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: Thu, 19 May 2022 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5f9d6d67-0a99-44e6-8cc2-6935533aa637n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.25.5.69; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.25.5.69
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <5f9d6d67-0a99-44e6-8cc2-6935533aa637n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e7d325f3-5f80-4430-b110-fe05ad3ccf7fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 20:28:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2557
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Thu, 19 May 2022 20:28 UTC

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 22:02:57 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:02:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> <Diversions snipped>
>
> Before you start a new thread, finish the old ones; You have unfinished threads:
>
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:41:33 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 17/05/2022 à 14:56, rotchm a écrit :
> > > Given a reference frame which has been coordinated, two events are said to be
> > > "simultaneous" when the clocks
> > > located at the events in question indicate the same value.
> > This is one of the biggest bullshit I've ever heard from a guy who
> > understood the theory of relativity.
>
> Its a definition. Don't you know what a definition is? Whats its purpose, its use?

As you said yourself, poor stinker: together with your
idiot guru you should use another word.

> You are confused. We were not talking about synching watches. We were talking about
> the *simultaneity* of two *events*. See your first sentence of your OP.

Two events are simultaneous when their TAI/UTC/GPS
time coordinates are equal. That's how things are in the real
world. Doesn't matter how loud your bunch of idiots will scream
"NOOOOOOO!!!!!!". It's not going to change anything.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90523&group=sci.physics.relativity#90523

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed3-a.proxad.net!nnrp1-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 22:50:49 +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: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Content-Language: en-GB
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
From: pyt...@python.invalid (Python)
In-Reply-To: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 May 2022 22:50:38 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.150.91.24
X-Trace: 1652993438 news-1.free.fr 18744 176.150.91.24:55868
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
 by: Python - Thu, 19 May 2022 20:50 UTC

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> This equation, which I had posed for its beauty and its simplicity, a
> long time ago already, then which I extended to uniformly accelerated
> movements, provided that the departure of the protagonists takes place
> at rest, was it correct?
> I think so even more today.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
>
> I think so especially since I understood why there was a huge bias in
> relativity thinking in two of the most famous problems, one in constant
> speed (Langevin's traveler), the other in uniformly accelerated speed
> (the traveler of Tau Ceti).
> As for the second problem (for the first it is ignorance of the spatial
> zoom effect), it is in the a priori belief that one can consider that an
> accelerated speed is only the putting small constant reference frames
> end to end.
> I believed it too, and I would have laughed if someone had told me
> otherwise.
> Yet the problem is there. It's not the same thing.
> The equation to use is therefore not (but there, no one will want to
> believe me) To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) as in thez uniform movements BUT
> To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4 )Vr²/c²)

Well, so you changed you mind. It's not any more the same clock
values for both travellers (it was contradictory, as pointed
out by several people btw).

But where is the 1/4 coming from? You didn't show how you
derived this equation.

Anyway, it is necessarily wrong also. Vr in the second one is
a average speed, right? I suggest you to think about what happens
if you consider a very small acceleration, so small that it
cannot have measurable effects.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90524&group=sci.physics.relativity#90524

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2786:b0:6a3:39a4:53e3 with SMTP id g6-20020a05620a278600b006a339a453e3mr2530860qkp.766.1652993954577;
Thu, 19 May 2022 13:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:500b:b0:461:e282:181 with SMTP id
jo11-20020a056214500b00b00461e2820181mr5718122qvb.24.1652993954431; Thu, 19
May 2022 13:59:14 -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: Thu, 19 May 2022 13:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.25.5.69; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.25.5.69
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 20:59:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3084
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Thu, 19 May 2022 20:59 UTC

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 22:50:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > This equation, which I had posed for its beauty and its simplicity, a
> > long time ago already, then which I extended to uniformly accelerated
> > movements, provided that the departure of the protagonists takes place
> > at rest, was it correct?
> > I think so even more today.
> >
> > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >
> >
> > I think so especially since I understood why there was a huge bias in
> > relativity thinking in two of the most famous problems, one in constant
> > speed (Langevin's traveler), the other in uniformly accelerated speed
> > (the traveler of Tau Ceti).
> > As for the second problem (for the first it is ignorance of the spatial
> > zoom effect), it is in the a priori belief that one can consider that an
> > accelerated speed is only the putting small constant reference frames
> > end to end.
> > I believed it too, and I would have laughed if someone had told me
> > otherwise.
> > Yet the problem is there. It's not the same thing.
> > The equation to use is therefore not (but there, no one will want to
> > believe me) To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) as in thez uniform movements BUT
> > To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4 )Vr²/c²)
> Well, so you changed you mind. It's not any more the same clock

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: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90525&group=sci.physics.relativity#90525

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed1-b.proxad.net!nnrp5-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 23:10:48 +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: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Content-Language: en-GB
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
<6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
From: pyt...@python.invalid (Python)
In-Reply-To: <1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 May 2022 23:10:37 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.150.91.24
X-Trace: 1652994637 news-1.free.fr 24812 176.150.91.24:55993
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
 by: Python - Thu, 19 May 2022 21:10 UTC

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> [demented rant]

Could you explain us how can a^2+b^2=c^2 for a rectangular triangle
be true or not depending on the choice of units, Maciej? Thanks.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<Genx-RTROXqnn34gBXlONbt1zGI@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90526&group=sci.physics.relativity#90526

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <Genx-RTROXqnn34gBXlONbt1zGI@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: rxj0HCxySnIfFsV7c6l88XhhAPs
JNTP-ThreadID: EKvJ3Hfqu1E3FoeImkC70YpGLfI
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Genx-RTROXqnn34gBXlONbt1zGI@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 19 May 22 21:15:29 +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="fe2eacdbccdca2c9073534d4b8089b794a40c561"; logging-data="2022-05-19T21:15:29Z/6913863"; 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 - Thu, 19 May 2022 21:15 UTC

Le 19/05/2022 à 22:50, Python a écrit :
> Well, so you changed you mind. It's not any more the same clock
> values for both travellers (it was contradictory, as pointed
> out by several people btw).
>
> But where is the 1/4 coming from? You didn't show how you
> derived this equation.
>
> Anyway, it is necessarily wrong also. Vr in the second one is
> a average speed, right? I suggest you to think about what happens
> if you consider a very small acceleration, so small that it
> cannot have measurable effects.

Oh! A post without insults.

It's good.

So there needs to be a reward.

And answer the question asked.

The question is: but where does this strange 1/4 come from?

R.H.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<6286b593$0$18736$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90527&group=sci.physics.relativity#90527

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed1-a.proxad.net!nnrp1-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 23:24:45 +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: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Content-Language: fr
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
<6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <Genx-RTROXqnn34gBXlONbt1zGI@jntp>
From: pyt...@python.invalid (Python)
In-Reply-To: <Genx-RTROXqnn34gBXlONbt1zGI@jntp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <6286b593$0$18736$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 May 2022 23:24:35 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.150.91.24
X-Trace: 1652995475 news-1.free.fr 18736 176.150.91.24:56042
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
 by: Python - Thu, 19 May 2022 21:24 UTC

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 19/05/2022 à 22:50, Python a écrit :
>> Well, so you changed you mind. It's not any more the same clock
>> values for both travellers (it was contradictory, as pointed
>> out by several people btw).
>>
>> But where is the 1/4 coming from? You didn't show how you
>> derived this equation.
>>
>> Anyway, it is necessarily wrong also. Vr in the second one is
>> a average speed, right? I suggest you to think about what happens
>> if you consider a very small acceleration, so small that it
>> cannot have measurable effects.
>
>
> Oh! A post without insults.

As was numerous posts of mine, and others, you ignored.

> It's good.
>
> So there needs to be a reward.
>
> And answer the question asked.
>
> The question is: but where does this strange 1/4 come from?

It's one out of two questions. The second one is: how cannot
you see, with my hint, that it cannot be right?

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90533&group=sci.physics.relativity#90533

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:d87:b0:67b:311c:ecbd with SMTP id q7-20020a05620a0d8700b0067b311cecbdmr4580169qkl.146.1652997553032;
Thu, 19 May 2022 14:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:260d:b0:45a:e401:66ed with SMTP id
gu13-20020a056214260d00b0045ae40166edmr5977911qvb.37.1652997552891; Thu, 19
May 2022 14:59:12 -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: Thu, 19 May 2022 14:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.25.5.69; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.25.5.69
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com> <6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 21:59:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1847
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Thu, 19 May 2022 21:59 UTC

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > [demented rant]
>
> Could you explain us

Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.

Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
That your bunch of idiots has ruined it, just like many other
reasonable rules?

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<8ece9d1c-7c9c-4b7f-a8d0-761d0d07dc35n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90534&group=sci.physics.relativity#90534

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:44cf:b0:6a0:3f3c:c2a4 with SMTP id y15-20020a05620a44cf00b006a03f3cc2a4mr4547199qkp.746.1652997856566;
Thu, 19 May 2022 15:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:43a4:b0:6a2:e7dc:40c2 with SMTP id
a36-20020a05620a43a400b006a2e7dc40c2mr4496263qkp.404.1652997856353; Thu, 19
May 2022 15:04:16 -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: Thu, 19 May 2022 15:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.160.32.227; posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8ece9d1c-7c9c-4b7f-a8d0-761d0d07dc35n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: rot...@gmail.com (rotchm)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 22:04:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1579
 by: rotchm - Thu, 19 May 2022 22:04 UTC

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:59:16 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> 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?

<Snipped off topic rants>

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<KKHrhD8ZtgeZxkeLTHpo1OW8-aI@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90535&group=sci.physics.relativity#90535

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <KKHrhD8ZtgeZxkeLTHpo1OW8-aI@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: udK3WNcZ1m9RP819u2AAd6rIUy4
JNTP-ThreadID: EKvJ3Hfqu1E3FoeImkC70YpGLfI
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=KKHrhD8ZtgeZxkeLTHpo1OW8-aI@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 19 May 22 22:06:27 +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="fe2eacdbccdca2c9073534d4b8089b794a40c561"; logging-data="2022-05-19T22:06:27Z/6914030"; 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 - Thu, 19 May 2022 22:06 UTC

Le 19/05/2022 à 22:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 22:50:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>> > This equation, which I had posed for its beauty and its simplicity, a
>> > long time ago already, then which I extended to uniformly accelerated
>> > movements, provided that the departure of the protagonists takes place
>> > at rest, was it correct?
>> > I think so even more today.
>> >
>> > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>> >
>> >
>> > I think so especially since I understood why there was a huge bias in
>> > relativity thinking in two of the most famous problems, one in constant
>> > speed (Langevin's traveler), the other in uniformly accelerated speed
>> > (the traveler of Tau Ceti).
>> > As for the second problem (for the first it is ignorance of the spatial
>> > zoom effect), it is in the a priori belief that one can consider that an
>> > accelerated speed is only the putting small constant reference frames
>> > end to end.
>> > I believed it too, and I would have laughed if someone had told me
>> > otherwise.
>> > Yet the problem is there. It's not the same thing.
>> > The equation to use is therefore not (but there, no one will want to
>> > believe me) To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) as in thez uniform movements BUT
>> > To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4 )Vr²/c²)
>> Well, so you changed you mind. It's not any more the same clock
>
>
> 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?

Don't attack him.

For once he responds correctly to a post without insulting him, he should
not be discouraged.

R.H.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90537&group=sci.physics.relativity#90537

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp2-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 01:04:00 +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: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Content-Language: en-GB
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
<6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
<6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com>
From: pyt...@python.invalid (Python)
In-Reply-To: <4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 2022 01:03:51 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.150.91.24
X-Trace: 1653001431 news-4.free.fr 18395 176.150.91.24:56345
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
 by: Python - Thu, 19 May 2022 23:04 UTC

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>> [demented rant]
>>
>> Could you explain us
>
> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.

So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
Humanity ever had" is giving up?

> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?

No.

> That your bunch of idiots has ruined it, just like many other
> reasonable rules?

Well, again you missed the point. Study SR, GR, physics, etc.

*think*, don't rant with idiotic claims.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<3c6b67fd-6778-44e5-9298-658b9d73e386n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90539&group=sci.physics.relativity#90539

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:d87:b0:67b:311c:ecbd with SMTP id q7-20020a05620a0d8700b0067b311cecbdmr4765387qkl.146.1653002404319;
Thu, 19 May 2022 16:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4501:b0:6a0:495e:a0d1 with SMTP id
t1-20020a05620a450100b006a0495ea0d1mr4891212qkp.104.1653002404124; Thu, 19
May 2022 16:20:04 -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: Thu, 19 May 2022 16:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:601:1700:7df0:4804:cc44:f549:ba27;
posting-account=mPYpNwoAAADYT6u25jo4wRqpXbzZAAhf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:601:1700:7df0:4804:cc44:f549:ba27
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3c6b67fd-6778-44e5-9298-658b9d73e386n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: fultonis...@gmail.com (Stan Fultoni)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 23:20:04 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Stan Fultoni - Thu, 19 May 2022 23:20 UTC

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:02:56 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > 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.

You didn't run away from the venue, but you ran away from the debunking of your beliefs, as all crackpots do. When your lies are exposed, you just flee and start over again in a new thread.

I ask again: What is the elapsed proper time for a clock moving uniformly (no acceleration) from xi,ti to xj,tj ? Why can't you answer this simple question?

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<nVUXFGgeqj-Y5Jf06hlRbJsN6mM@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90541&group=sci.physics.relativity#90541

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <nVUXFGgeqj-Y5Jf06hlRbJsN6mM@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <3c6b67fd-6778-44e5-9298-658b9d73e386n@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: dWvG_w6JNEbKxf7zWXy-TRCKXZM
JNTP-ThreadID: EKvJ3Hfqu1E3FoeImkC70YpGLfI
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=nVUXFGgeqj-Y5Jf06hlRbJsN6mM@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 19 May 22 23:34:28 +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="fe2eacdbccdca2c9073534d4b8089b794a40c561"; logging-data="2022-05-19T23:34:28Z/6914222"; 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 - Thu, 19 May 2022 23:34 UTC

Le 20/05/2022 à 01:20, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> You didn't run away from the venue, but you ran away from the debunking of your
> beliefs, as all crackpots do. When your lies are exposed, you just flee and start
> over again in a new thread.
>
> I ask again: What is the elapsed proper time for a clock moving uniformly (no
> acceleration) from xi,ti to xj,tj ? Why can't you answer this simple question?

Because the answer is known to everyone.

If an entity is moving at constant speed Vo, its proper time
will be Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Or Tr=To/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

The best-known example is that of Langevin's traveler, where a traveler
goes into the stars for a terrestrial duration of 30 years and at two
hundred and forty thousand kilometers per second.

Vo=0.8c

Vr=1.3333c

Its proper time will be:
Tr=30.sqrt(1-0.8²)=18 years.

However, Tr=30/sqrt(1+1.3333²)=18 years.

There is no difficult problem here.

R.H.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<d1885c91-c3d0-4bcf-968d-52efc5dddd41n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90547&group=sci.physics.relativity#90547

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:258e:b0:680:f33c:dbcd with SMTP id x14-20020a05620a258e00b00680f33cdbcdmr5171318qko.542.1653009400477;
Thu, 19 May 2022 18:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5005:b0:461:c843:98e7 with SMTP id
jo5-20020a056214500500b00461c84398e7mr6481438qvb.16.1653009400307; Thu, 19
May 2022 18:16:40 -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: Thu, 19 May 2022 18:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <nVUXFGgeqj-Y5Jf06hlRbJsN6mM@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:601:1700:7df0:4804:cc44:f549:ba27;
posting-account=mPYpNwoAAADYT6u25jo4wRqpXbzZAAhf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:601:1700:7df0:4804:cc44:f549:ba27
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <3c6b67fd-6778-44e5-9298-658b9d73e386n@googlegroups.com>
<nVUXFGgeqj-Y5Jf06hlRbJsN6mM@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d1885c91-c3d0-4bcf-968d-52efc5dddd41n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: fultonis...@gmail.com (Stan Fultoni)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 01:16:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3044
 by: Stan Fultoni - Fri, 20 May 2022 01:16 UTC

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:34:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > I ask again: What is the elapsed proper time for a clock moving uniformly (no
> > acceleration) from xi,ti to xj,tj ? Why can't you answer this simple question?
>
> If an entity is moving at constant speed Vo, its proper time will
> be Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).

You contradict yourself (again). 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.

Those claims are self-contradictory, because, for any three events e1,e2,e3 on a constantly accelerating path, where the accelerating clock reads the proper time values tau1,tau2,tau3, your claim is that

. . tau2 - tau1 = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2]
. . tau3 - tau2 = sqrt[(t3-t2)^2 - (x3-x2)^2]
. . tau3 - tau1 = sqrt[(t3-t1)^2 - (x3-x1)^2]

but these relations are self-contradictory, as shown by the fact that

.. . . (tau2-tau1) + (tau3-tau2) = (tau3-tau1)

If you add the right sides of the first two expressions above, it does not equal the right side of the third expression unless the three events e1,e2,e3 are co-linear, meaning the accelerating path is not accelerating. This proves that your claims are self-contradictory.

Whenever this is explained to you, you deny (1), but you just re-affirmed (1), then then you deny it, and then you re-affirm it, and then you deny it.... and so on, endlessly.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90564&group=sci.physics.relativity#90564

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7d46:0:b0:2f3:dd89:5557 with SMTP id h6-20020ac87d46000000b002f3dd895557mr6736392qtb.567.1653035630518;
Fri, 20 May 2022 01:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:dc45:0:b0:69f:c1f3:3328 with SMTP id
q66-20020ae9dc45000000b0069fc1f33328mr5574387qkf.418.1653035630362; Fri, 20
May 2022 01:33:50 -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: Fri, 20 May 2022 01:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@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: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com> <6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com> <6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 08:33:50 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2283
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 20 May 2022 08:33 UTC

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>> [demented rant]
> >>
> >> Could you explain us
> >
> > Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
> > to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
> > Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
> > Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
> > amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
> > the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
> > a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
> No.

Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90568&group=sci.physics.relativity#90568

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:2f04:0:b0:663:397d:7051 with SMTP id v4-20020a372f04000000b00663397d7051mr5586536qkh.333.1653039588015;
Fri, 20 May 2022 02:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2a87:b0:461:e7cf:6ec6 with SMTP id
jr7-20020a0562142a8700b00461e7cf6ec6mr7256277qvb.82.1653039587924; Fri, 20
May 2022 02:39:47 -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: Fri, 20 May 2022 02:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com> <6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com> <6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
<2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 09:39:48 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2576
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 20 May 2022 09:39 UTC

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 10:33:52 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> > >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > >>> [demented rant]
> > >>
> > >> Could you explain us
> > >
> > > Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
> > > to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
> > So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
> > even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
> > Humanity ever had" is giving up?
> > > Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
> > > Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
> > > amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
> > > the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
> > > a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
> > No.
> Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
> on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!

Well, a mistake of mine, of course. It's 86400.000038 on
a GPS satellite. Still different than 86400.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<62876636$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90569&group=sci.physics.relativity#90569

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!212.27.60.64.MISMATCH!cleanfeed3-b.proxad.net!nnrp5-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 11:58:28 +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: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Content-Language: fr
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
<6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
<6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com>
<6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
<2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com>
From: pyt...@python.invalid (Python)
In-Reply-To: <2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <62876636$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 2022 11:58:14 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.150.91.24
X-Trace: 1653040694 news-1.free.fr 24801 176.150.91.24:58356
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
 by: Python - Fri, 20 May 2022 09:58 UTC

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>> [demented rant]
>>>>
>>>> Could you explain us
>>>
>>> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
>>> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
>> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
>> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
>> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
>>> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
>>> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
>>> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
>>> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
>>> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
>> No.
>
> Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
> on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!

wrong.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<62876673$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90570&group=sci.physics.relativity#90570

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed3-b.proxad.net!nnrp5-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 11:59:29 +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: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Content-Language: fr
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
<6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
<6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com>
<6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
<2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com>
<b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com>
From: pyt...@python.invalid (Python)
In-Reply-To: <b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <62876673$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 2022 11:59:15 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.150.91.24
X-Trace: 1653040755 news-1.free.fr 24801 176.150.91.24:58356
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
 by: Python - Fri, 20 May 2022 09:59 UTC

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 10:33:52 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>> [demented rant]
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you explain us
>>>>
>>>> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
>>>> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
>>> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
>>> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
>>> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
>>>> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
>>>> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
>>>> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
>>>> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
>>>> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
>>> No.
>> Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
>> on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!
>
> Well, a mistake of mine, of course. It's 86400.000038 on
> a GPS satellite. Still different than 86400.

still wrong Wozzie.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<ecfe6173-8dca-4ddb-8085-8fc481861313n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90571&group=sci.physics.relativity#90571

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:188:b0:2f9:1ceb:6a0e with SMTP id s8-20020a05622a018800b002f91ceb6a0emr1807797qtw.285.1653042863423;
Fri, 20 May 2022 03:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:290:b0:2f3:b28d:22a with SMTP id
z16-20020a05622a029000b002f3b28d022amr7186473qtw.446.1653042863268; Fri, 20
May 2022 03:34:23 -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: Fri, 20 May 2022 03:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <62876673$0$24801$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: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com> <6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com> <6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
<2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com> <b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com>
<62876673$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ecfe6173-8dca-4ddb-8085-8fc481861313n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 10:34:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 20 May 2022 10:34 UTC

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 11:59:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 10:33:52 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>> [demented rant]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could you explain us
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
> >>>> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
> >>> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
> >>> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
> >>> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
> >>>> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
> >>>> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
> >>>> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
> >>>> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
> >>>> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
> >>> No.
> >> Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
> >> on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!
> >
> > Well, a mistake of mine, of course. It's 86400.000038 on
> > a GPS satellite. Still different than 86400.
> still wrong Wozzie.

When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must be
true. Well, no. There is no constant multiplier
between a day and an ISO second anymore.
Your bunch of idiots has ruined this rule, just like
many other reasonable rules.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<62879d24$0$24806$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90576&group=sci.physics.relativity#90576

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed1-a.proxad.net!nnrp5-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
<6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
<6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com>
<6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
<2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com>
<b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com>
<62876673$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<ecfe6173-8dca-4ddb-8085-8fc481861313n@googlegroups.com>
From: pyt...@invalid (Python)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 15:52:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ecfe6173-8dca-4ddb-8085-8fc481861313n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <62879d24$0$24806$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 2022 15:52:36 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.88.165.227
X-Trace: 1653054756 news-1.free.fr 24806 87.88.165.227:7900
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
 by: Python - Fri, 20 May 2022 13:52 UTC

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 11:59:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 10:33:52 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>>>> [demented rant]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you explain us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
>>>>>> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
>>>>> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
>>>>> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
>>>>> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
>>>>>> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
>>>>>> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
>>>>>> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
>>>>>> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
>>>>>> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
>>>>> No.
>>>> Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
>>>> on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!
>>>
>>> Well, a mistake of mine, of course. It's 86400.000038 on
>>> a GPS satellite. Still different than 86400.
>> still wrong Wozzie.
>
> When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must be
> true. Well, no. There is no constant multiplier
> between a day and an ISO second anymore.
> Your bunch of idiots has ruined this rule, just like
> many other reasonable rules.
>

Still wrong, even if you repeated it one thousand time, Woz...

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<44dbfa5a-cadc-4be5-b6ba-a82ba445601cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90577&group=sci.physics.relativity#90577

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a385:0:b0:6a3:2baf:7e98 with SMTP id m127-20020a37a385000000b006a32baf7e98mr6461595qke.109.1653055016296;
Fri, 20 May 2022 06:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5f85:0:b0:461:e790:e812 with SMTP id
jp5-20020ad45f85000000b00461e790e812mr8172963qvb.56.1653055016146; Fri, 20
May 2022 06:56:56 -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: Fri, 20 May 2022 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <62879d24$0$24806$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: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com> <6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com> <6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
<2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com> <b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com>
<62876673$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <ecfe6173-8dca-4ddb-8085-8fc481861313n@googlegroups.com>
<62879d24$0$24806$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <44dbfa5a-cadc-4be5-b6ba-a82ba445601cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 13:56:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 3479
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 20 May 2022 13:56 UTC

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 15:52:39 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 11:59:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 10:33:52 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>>>> [demented rant]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Could you explain us
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
> >>>>>> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
> >>>>> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
> >>>>> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
> >>>>> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
> >>>>>> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
> >>>>>> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
> >>>>>> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
> >>>>>> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
> >>>>>> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
> >>>>> No.
> >>>> Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
> >>>> on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!
> >>>
> >>> Well, a mistake of mine, of course. It's 86400.000038 on
> >>> a GPS satellite. Still different than 86400.
> >> still wrong Wozzie.
> >
> > When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must be
> > true. Well, no. There is no constant multiplier
> > between a day and an ISO second anymore.
> > Your bunch of idiots has ruined this rule, just like
> > many other reasonable rules.
> >
> Still wrong, even if you repeated it one thousand time, Woz...

Impudent denying the reality may only help
your Shit in the short run, Pyt...

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<62879ef4$0$22071$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90578&group=sci.physics.relativity#90578

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed3-a.proxad.net!nnrp3-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>
<6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com>
<6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com>
<6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
<2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com>
<b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com>
<62876673$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<ecfe6173-8dca-4ddb-8085-8fc481861313n@googlegroups.com>
<62879d24$0$24806$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<44dbfa5a-cadc-4be5-b6ba-a82ba445601cn@googlegroups.com>
From: pyt...@invalid (Python)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 16:00:20 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <44dbfa5a-cadc-4be5-b6ba-a82ba445601cn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <62879ef4$0$22071$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 2022 16:00:20 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.88.165.227
X-Trace: 1653055220 news-1.free.fr 22071 87.88.165.227:7680
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
 by: Python - Fri, 20 May 2022 14:00 UTC

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 15:52:39 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 11:59:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 10:33:52 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [demented rant]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could you explain us
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
>>>>>>>> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
>>>>>>> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
>>>>>>> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
>>>>>>> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
>>>>>>>> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
>>>>>>>> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
>>>>>>>> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
>>>>>>>> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
>>>>>>>> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
>>>>>> on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, a mistake of mine, of course. It's 86400.000038 on
>>>>> a GPS satellite. Still different than 86400.
>>>> still wrong Wozzie.
>>>
>>> When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must be
>>> true. Well, no. There is no constant multiplier
>>> between a day and an ISO second anymore.
>>> Your bunch of idiots has ruined this rule, just like
>>> many other reasonable rules.
>>>
>> Still wrong, even if you repeated it one thousand time, Woz...
>
> Impudent denying the reality may only help
> your Shit in the short run, Pyt...
>

117 years, still running. You'll rot in the holy soil of Poland for
eons and Relativity will still be there, Woz.

This is why your silly posts enjoy people, you know?

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<7505637d-2940-4b3d-a299-8cae6cbae10bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90579&group=sci.physics.relativity#90579

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:15:b0:2f3:cd8f:2a78 with SMTP id x21-20020a05622a001500b002f3cd8f2a78mr7930851qtw.43.1653057747709;
Fri, 20 May 2022 07:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:164b:b0:2f3:e36f:956 with SMTP id
y11-20020a05622a164b00b002f3e36f0956mr7726566qtj.210.1653057747545; Fri, 20
May 2022 07:42:27 -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: Fri, 20 May 2022 07:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <62879ef4$0$22071$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: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com> <6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
<4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com> <6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
<2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com> <b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com>
<62876673$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <ecfe6173-8dca-4ddb-8085-8fc481861313n@googlegroups.com>
<62879d24$0$24806$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <44dbfa5a-cadc-4be5-b6ba-a82ba445601cn@googlegroups.com>
<62879ef4$0$22071$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7505637d-2940-4b3d-a299-8cae6cbae10bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 14:42:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 3913
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 20 May 2022 14:42 UTC

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 16:00:23 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 15:52:39 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 11:59:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 10:33:52 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> [demented rant]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Could you explain us
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
> >>>>>>>> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
> >>>>>>> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
> >>>>>>> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
> >>>>>>> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
> >>>>>>>> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
> >>>>>>>> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
> >>>>>>>> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
> >>>>>>>> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
> >>>>>>>> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
> >>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>> Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
> >>>>>> on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, a mistake of mine, of course. It's 86400.000038 on
> >>>>> a GPS satellite. Still different than 86400.
> >>>> still wrong Wozzie.
> >>>
> >>> When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must be
> >>> true. Well, no. There is no constant multiplier
> >>> between a day and an ISO second anymore.
> >>> Your bunch of idiots has ruined this rule, just like
> >>> many other reasonable rules.
> >>>
> >> Still wrong, even if you repeated it one thousand time, Woz...
> >
> > Impudent denying the reality may only help
> > your Shit in the short run, Pyt...
> >
> 117 years, still running.

And while "running" - forbidden by it GPS and TAI
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Re: [SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

<1ps9cqk.14m41vx14wy79jN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90599&group=sci.physics.relativity#90599

 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] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 21:12:52 +0200
Organization: De Ster
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <1ps9cqk.14m41vx14wy79jN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
References: <uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp> <6286ad9e$0$18744$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <1204de5e-75b7-4ddf-bc35-1c62637215ddn@googlegroups.com> <6286b24d$0$24812$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <4a4cb9d5-170a-4dfc-8dbb-7be6675c023fn@googlegroups.com> <6286ccd7$0$18395$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <2606d20b-6e0d-408c-a2f7-7718c0c9ca47n@googlegroups.com> <b938d537-3be0-427e-8aa0-18bd45fad38cn@googlegroups.com> <62876673$0$24801$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <ecfe6173-8dca-4ddb-8085-8fc481861313n@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: jjlax32@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1016f7d31973e1c7c6f4ba693f5774a7";
logging-data="32256"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RFkI26vlTG4s3az4cAKkqGjXoPszO15Q="
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.10.5)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i1nFV1hXs6H+fyRB+3PvOeth14o=
 by: J. J. Lodder - Fri, 20 May 2022 19:12 UTC

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 11:59:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > > On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 10:33:52 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> > >>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>>> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> > >>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > >>>>>> [demented rant]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Could you explain us
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
> > >>>> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
> > >>> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
> > >>> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
> > >>> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
> > >>>> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
> > >>>> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
> > >>>> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
> > >>>> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
> > >>>> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
> > >>> No.
> > >> Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
> > >> on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!
> > >
> > > Well, a mistake of mine, of course. It's 86400.000038 on
> > > a GPS satellite. Still different than 86400.
> > still wrong Wozzie.
>
> When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must be
> true. Well, no. There is no constant multiplier
> between a day and an ISO second anymore.
> Your bunch of idiots has ruined this rule, just like
> many other reasonable rules.

There cannot be any constant multiplier between any fixed clock second
and the observed length of the day.
(as defined by the observed rotation of the Earth)
The observed length of the (siderial) day is highly variable.
(with today's precision)
That is a fact of life that no one can do anything about.

OTOH, for many purposes the length of a 'day' is defined
to be 24*60*60 seconds, exactly.

So take your pick, and define your terms,

Jan

Pages:12
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor