On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 21:12:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@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.

Still, THE SAME day takes different amount of ISO
seconds, depending on the position and the speed of
the clock. And that means that your precious laws of
physics written in days, or in day related seconds -
will be different. And that they were different up to
1968 (afair). With the unit of time as it was defined
when your idiot guru lived and mumbled - his
dilation was a logical absurd.

> So take your pick, and define your terms,

:) what do you mean by "define"? Define it....
The terms of the real power and real importance
are not defined and never were. Of course,
it makes correct applying them much more
complicated and difficult... Too complicated
and too difficult for you.

On 5/19/2022 9:16 PM, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> 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]

If one adds the first two equations, you get:

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

But the third equation reads:

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.

In other words, except for a particular special case where:
sqrt[(t3-t1)^2 - (x3-x1)^2] = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2] +
sqrt[(t3-t2)^2 - (x3-x2)^2], your (Richard's) claim is false.

And that special case is when there is no acceleration.
>
> 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.

Le 21/05/2022 à 03:58, Volney a écrit :
> On 5/19/2022 9:16 PM, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> 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]
>
> If one adds the first two equations, you get:
>
> tau3 - tau1 = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2] + sqrt[(t3-t2)^2 - (x3-x2)^2]
>
> But the third equation reads:
>
> 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.
>
> In other words, except for a particular special case where:
> sqrt[(t3-t1)^2 - (x3-x1)^2] = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2] +
> sqrt[(t3-t2)^2 - (x3-x2)^2], your (Richard's) claim is false.
>
> And that special case is when there is no acceleration.
>>
>> 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.

I think that an in-depth reflection on this subject would be worthwhile
and welcome.

Too many things do not fit in the theory of relativity as it is presented.

R.H.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 21:12:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@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.
>
> Still, THE SAME day takes different amount of ISO
> seconds, depending on the position and the speed of
> the clock. And that means that your precious laws of
> physics written in days, or in day related seconds -
> will be different. And that they were different up to
> 1968 (afair). With the unit of time as it was defined
> when your idiot guru lived and mumbled - his
> dilation was a logical absurd.
>
>
>
> > So take your pick, and define your terms,
>
> :) what do you mean by "define"? Define it....
> The terms of the real power and real importance
> are not defined and never were. Of course,
> it makes correct applying them much more
> complicated and difficult... Too complicated
> and too difficult for you.

You are still not telling us what 'a day' is,
according to you,

Jan

On Saturday, 21 May 2022 at 10:59:52 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 21:12:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@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.
> >
> > Still, THE SAME day takes different amount of ISO
> > seconds, depending on the position and the speed of
> > the clock. And that means that your precious laws of
> > physics written in days, or in day related seconds -
> > will be different. And that they were different up to
> > 1968 (afair). With the unit of time as it was defined
> > when your idiot guru lived and mumbled - his
> > dilation was a logical absurd.
> >
> >
> >
> > > So take your pick, and define your terms,
> >
> > :) what do you mean by "define"? Define it....
> > The terms of the real power and real importance
> > are not defined and never were. Of course,
> > it makes correct applying them much more
> > complicated and difficult... Too complicated
> > and too difficult for you.
> You are still not telling us what 'a day' is,
> according to you,

How could I when you've not told what "telling"
is according to you, poor halfbrain?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 21 May 2022 at 10:59:52 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 21:12:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@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.
> > >
> > > Still, THE SAME day takes different amount of ISO
> > > seconds, depending on the position and the speed of
> > > the clock. And that means that your precious laws of
> > > physics written in days, or in day related seconds -
> > > will be different. And that they were different up to
> > > 1968 (afair). With the unit of time as it was defined
> > > when your idiot guru lived and mumbled - his
> > > dilation was a logical absurd.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > So take your pick, and define your terms,
> > >
> > > :) what do you mean by "define"? Define it....
> > > The terms of the real power and real importance
> > > are not defined and never were. Of course,
> > > it makes correct applying them much more
> > > complicated and difficult... Too complicated
> > > and too difficult for you.
> > You are still not telling us what 'a day' is,
> > according to you,
>
> How could I when you've not told what "telling"
> is according to you, poor halfbrain?

If you cannot even tell us what 'a day' is, according to you,
you cannot expect us to tell you anything about it,

Jan

On Saturday, 21 May 2022 at 14:26:15 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 21 May 2022 at 10:59:52 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 21:12:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@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.
> > > >
> > > > Still, THE SAME day takes different amount of ISO
> > > > seconds, depending on the position and the speed of
> > > > the clock. And that means that your precious laws of
> > > > physics written in days, or in day related seconds -
> > > > will be different. And that they were different up to
> > > > 1968 (afair). With the unit of time as it was defined
> > > > when your idiot guru lived and mumbled - his
> > > > dilation was a logical absurd.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > So take your pick, and define your terms,
> > > >
> > > > :) what do you mean by "define"? Define it....
> > > > The terms of the real power and real importance
> > > > are not defined and never were. Of course,
> > > > it makes correct applying them much more
> > > > complicated and difficult... Too complicated
> > > > and too difficult for you.
> > > You are still not telling us what 'a day' is,
> > > according to you,
> >
> > How could I when you've not told what "telling"
> > is according to you, poor halfbrain?
> If you cannot even tell us what 'a day' is, according to you,
> you cannot expect us to tell you anything about it,

If you can't even tell me what you expect - I can't do
what you expect, poor halfbrain.