https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
in physics.

So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
times, 20000 times, anything you like.

Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
DARE YOU!!!!" like always.

On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
> in physics.
>
> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>
> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.

Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock for
those on earth, but can never be a proper time clock for those (such as
the traveling twin) moving rapidly relative to it. But you'll never
understand why, which is why you are a janitor and not a physicist.

On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 19:34:25 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> > As seen, the definition of second loved so
> > much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> > wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> > lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> > 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
> > in physics.
> >
> > So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> > like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> > the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> > during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> > 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> > times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >
> > Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> > so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> > DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock

Once again, your opinion is irrelevant, the definition
valid in the time of your idiot guru was as it was
and his moronic mumble was inconsistent.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 10:34:25 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> > As seen, the definition of second loved so
> > much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> > wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> > lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> > 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
> > in physics.
> >
> > So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> > like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> > the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> > during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> > 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> > times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >
> > Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> > so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> > DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock for
> those on earth, but can never be a proper time clock for those (such as
> the traveling twin) moving rapidly relative to it. But you'll never
> understand why, which is why you are a janitor and not a physicist.

What about speed slows time you moron?

Mitchell Raemsch

On 8/17/2022 1:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 19:34:25 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>> 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
>>> in physics.
>>>
>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>
>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock
>
> Once again, your opinion is irrelevant, the definition > valid in the time of your idiot guru was as it was
> and his moronic mumble was inconsistent.

It is your irrelevant opinion that the then-current definition of the
second can somehow affect the results.

If the traveling twin trip actually took place before the redefinition
of the second, the traveling twin would notice that the rotation of the
earth disagreed with local (proper) time measurements such as the rate
of radioactive decay, his own clocks, a pregnant woman taking 9 months
to give birth, the time to cook a 3 minute egg etc. Especially his own
aging rate. This makes perfect sense, of course, since the earth
wouldn't be a proper time clock for him but measuring coordinate time
for those on earth.

The twin would return and state "Using the earth to define the second is
a bad idea since space travelers cannot take along their own personal
earth to measure their proper time." As he hugged his older twin sister.

And once again, I don't expect a mere janitor to understand any of this.

On 8/17/2022 2:14 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 10:34:25 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>> 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
>>> in physics.
>>>
>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>
>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock for
>> those on earth, but can never be a proper time clock for those (such as
>> the traveling twin) moving rapidly relative to it. But you'll never
>> understand why, which is why you are a janitor and not a physicist.
>
> What about speed slows time you moron?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

English, please, Roy. This whole thread is about time dilation and the
traveling twin situation, which really confuses poor Wozniak.

On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 21:10:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 1:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 19:34:25 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>> 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
> >>> in physics.
> >>>
> >>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock
> >
> > Once again, your opinion is irrelevant, the definition > valid in the time of your idiot guru was as it was
> > and his moronic mumble was inconsistent.
> It is your irrelevant opinion that the then-current definition of the
> second can somehow affect the results.

> If the traveling twin trip actually took place before the redefinition
> of the second, the traveling twin would notice that the rotation of the
> earth disagreed with local (proper) time measurements

No, stupid Mike. What he would notice would be
that proper (according to the valid definition of time
unit) time measurements were denying inconsistent
mumble of your idiot guru.
Fortunately for your Shit it was completely delusional,
with no real observers really able to check it.

On 8/17/2022 2:12 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 2:14 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 10:34:25 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>> 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
>>>> in physics.
>>>>
>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock for
>>> those on earth, but can never be a proper time clock for those (such as
>>> the traveling twin) moving rapidly relative to it. But you'll never
>>> understand why, which is why you are a janitor and not a physicist.
>>
>> What about speed slows time you moron?
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> English, please, Roy. This whole thread is about time dilation and the
> traveling twin situation, which really confuses poor Wozniak.

If it doesn't confuse someone that's because they don't understand the
underlying problem.

On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 23:30:53 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 2:12 PM, Volney wrote:
> > On 8/17/2022 2:14 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 10:34:25 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >>> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>> 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
> >>>> in physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock for
> >>> those on earth, but can never be a proper time clock for those (such as
> >>> the traveling twin) moving rapidly relative to it. But you'll never
> >>> understand why, which is why you are a janitor and not a physicist.
> >>
> >> What about speed slows time you moron?
> >>
> >> Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > English, please, Roy. This whole thread is about time dilation and the
> > traveling twin situation, which really confuses poor Wozniak.
> If it doesn't confuse someone that's because they don't understand the
> underlying problem.

Which is - idiots devoted to discover
Great Mystical Essence of the Core -
usually tend to mumble inconsistently.

On 8/17/2022 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 21:10:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/17/2022 1:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 19:34:25 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>> 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
>>>>> in physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock
>>>
>>> Once again, your opinion is irrelevant, the definition > valid in the time of your idiot guru was as it was
>>> and his moronic mumble was inconsistent.
>> It is your irrelevant opinion that the then-current definition of the
>> second can somehow affect the results.
>
>> If the traveling twin trip actually took place before the redefinition
>> of the second, the traveling twin would notice that the rotation of the
>> earth disagreed with local (proper) time measurements
>
> No, stupid Mike. What he would notice would be
> that proper (according to the valid definition of time
> unit) time measurements were denying inconsistent
> mumble of your idiot guru.

No, janitor, in this context "proper time" means the time shown on a
clock comoving with the observer/observed. In this case the traveling
twin. Think of the twin's wristwatch.

SR predicts the traveling twin will see the earth rotate too fast
overall, as far as local (to him) processes are concerned. Different
parts of the trip will have different rates, including a portion where
the earth spins too slowly.

When he returns to find his twin sister as 30 years older than when he
left, he realizes his count of 10950 earth rotations during the trip was
correct, while he and anything he took with him will be only 18 years
older. Even a radioactive substance, whose decay rate can't be
influenced by anything, will show the expected amount of decay for 18 years.

Remember the earth rotation is a coordinate time clock to the space
traveler, not a proper time clock. Remember as well, the rotation of the
earth does not create time, it simply is a clock, and until relatively
recently, it was the best clock humans had.

> Fortunately for your Shit it was completely delusional,
> with no real observers really able to check it.

We *have* checked it, the experimental results agree with SR.

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:08:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 21:10:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/17/2022 1:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 19:34:25 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>>> 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
> >>>>> in physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>>> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock
> >>>
> >>> Once again, your opinion is irrelevant, the definition > valid in the time of your idiot guru was as it was
> >>> and his moronic mumble was inconsistent.
> >> It is your irrelevant opinion that the then-current definition of the
> >> second can somehow affect the results.
> >
> >> If the traveling twin trip actually took place before the redefinition
> >> of the second, the traveling twin would notice that the rotation of the
> >> earth disagreed with local (proper) time measurements
> >
> > No, stupid Mike. What he would notice would be
> > that proper (according to the valid definition of time
> > unit) time measurements were denying inconsistent
> > mumble of your idiot guru.
> No, janitor, in this context "proper time" means the time shown on a
> clock comoving with the observer/observed.

Yes, stupid Mike, in any context measurement means
comparing measured value to the unit of measurement.

> SR predicts the traveling twin will see the earth rotate too fast

Sure, and considering the definition of the unit
of time valid when your idiot guru was living and
mumbling - his moronic mumble was simply and
obviously inconsistent.

Le 18/08/2022 à 18:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:08:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

>> SR predicts the traveling twin will see the earth rotate too fast
>
> Sure, and considering the definition of the unit
> of time valid when your idiot guru was living and
> mumbling - his moronic mumble was simply and
> obviously inconsistent.

It's strange.

I disagree with the last two speakers.

The first who says that we observe the earth rotating faster, with the
second who says that it rotates at "normal" speed, and a possible third
who would say that it rotates slower.

All this proves that no one understands this theory, and even the greatest
specialists in history.

That's not the way to talk AT ALL.

R.H.

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:31:37 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/08/2022 à 18:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:08:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>
> >> SR predicts the traveling twin will see the earth rotate too fast
> >
> > Sure, and considering the definition of the unit
> > of time valid when your idiot guru was living and
> > mumbling - his moronic mumble was simply and
> > obviously inconsistent.
> It's strange.
>
> I disagree with the last two speakers.
>
> The first who says that we observe the earth rotating faster, with the
> second who says that it rotates at "normal" speed, and a possible third
> who would say that it rotates slower.
>
> All this proves that no one understands this theory

Why to understand some mystical, inconsistent
mumble of an insane, incompetent crazie?

Le 18/08/2022 à 18:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> Why to understand some mystical, inconsistent
> mumble of an insane, incompetent crazie?

You are confusing guru Einstein (a plagiarist buddy of Python) with the
greatest mathematician in world history.

It was Henri Poincaré who gave the correct foundations of the theory, and
it was then Einstein who copied it, then distorted it by deviating it,
rather than carrying it further.

Today, even the greatest specialists in the world dare not admit that
their theory is blabla and misunderstood.

We are therefore in the situation of the snake biting its own tail, and
they use people like you who contradict EVERYTHING (including Poincaré)
to accredit the idea that Poincaré being right (certain experimental
evidence), Einstein was right.

It's very well done, and they've been winning for years, even when shown
the evidence that there are mistakes in Einstein who didn't UNDERSTAND
Poincaré properly.

I advise you to take up the ideas of Poincaré, and see from when it
really screwed up.

Poincaré, ce n'est PAS Einstein, et Einstein ce n'est PAS Poincaré.

L'un est un génie, l'autre est un bouffon copieur (qui a du copier aussi
Grossman pour la RG).

R.H.

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 19:05:30 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/08/2022 à 18:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > Why to understand some mystical, inconsistent
> > mumble of an insane, incompetent crazie?
> You are confusing guru Einstein (a plagiarist buddy of Python) with the
> greatest mathematician in world history.
>
> It was Henri Poincaré who gave the correct foundations of the theory

If he did - it was a different theory than the one we're
talking of.

Le 18/08/2022 à 19:34, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> If he did - it was a different theory than the one we're
> talking of.

Yes, I don't think that this real genius (E=mc², it's him, the correct
Lorentz transformations, it's him, and a lot of things concerning modern
mathematics are his) could have formulated a theory such that 'we give it
today as it is really stupid and incoherent.

All physicists in the world accept a theory where the distance traveled by
the earth, which they estimate at 7.2 ly, is equal to its apparent speed
(4c) multiplied by the proper time of the observer (9 years).

I beg you to believe me that I have been trying to convince people for
years that it is nonsense to say that 4 times 9 is 7.2 and not 36.

It seems so absurd to them that they think that, despite thousands of
hours favoring me with the mathematics of this theory, it is ME who is
dumb enough not to have understood it and understood what I was talking
about when I explain something coherent.

While I explain to them ALL their paradoxes, and ALL their
misunderstandings (like Langevin's paradox, and like instantaneous quantum
transmissions).

So yes, we have to go back to the theory from the start, and from the
Lorentz transformations.

They can even be applied to accelerated media and rotating relativistic
disks.

The problem is that these equations, they all get them wrong.

And since I don't do like them, since I don't understand what they do and
why they do it (but the reverse is also true) they think I'm the "crank".

Their blindness is total and of incredible social power.

They do not even realize that the equation x=Vapp.Tr, i.e. the
multiplication of an apparent speed (for a subject observing a mobile
body) by a proper time (i.e. that of the subject), it is the distance that
this mobile will travel in the subject's reference frame.

I beg you to believe me when I say it's true: it drives them crazy!

Personally, I've always been between tears and laughter when I see such
proud idiots, who don't understand anything, stupidly repeat what they've
learned, and spit on a guy a tad less stupid than them.

This story is pathetic.

R.H.

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:18:40 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hachel wrote:

> And since I don't do like them, since I don't understand what they do and
> why they do it (but the reverse is also true) they think I'm the "crank".
>

Yep

Le 18/08/2022 à 20:22, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:18:40 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> And since I don't do like them, since I don't understand what they do and
>> why they do it (but the reverse is also true) they think I'm the "crank".
>>
>
> Yep

And you, did you understand why it was absurd to say that a man who
observes for 9 years an object which moves towards him with an apparent
speed of 4c, sees this object moving over a distance of 7.2 ly?

Do you understand why in my relativistic geometry, I don't have this kind
of problem? (At this level, it's even more of a paradox, it's an
absurdity).

What do you know how to do, if not the moron who doesn't understand
anything, and only comes to the forums to practice unseemly masturbation?

Idiot.

R.H.

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:14:36 PM UTC-7, imbecile Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/08/2022 à 20:22, "Dono." a écrit :
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:18:40 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> >> And since I don't do like them, since I don't understand what they do and
> >> why they do it (but the reverse is also true) they think I'm the "crank".
> >>
> >
> > Yep
> And you, did you understand why it was absurd to say that a man who
> observes for 9 years an object which moves towards him with an apparent
> speed of 4c,

There is no such thing as a "speed of 4c". Imbecile.

On 8/18/2022 2:17 PM, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:14:36 PM UTC-7, imbecile Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 18/08/2022 à 20:22, "Dono." a écrit :
>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:18:40 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>>> And since I don't do like them, since I don't understand what they do and
>>>> why they do it (but the reverse is also true) they think I'm the "crank".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep
>> And you, did you understand why it was absurd to say that a man who
>> observes for 9 years an object which moves towards him with an apparent
>> speed of 4c,
>
> There is no such thing as a "speed of 4c". Imbecile.

I suppose another way of saying what I've been attempting to
impart is that one can model the impossible.

Understanding the detail is what separates the men from the boys.

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 20:22:48 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:18:40 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > And since I don't do like them, since I don't understand what they do and
> > why they do it (but the reverse is also true) they think I'm the "crank".

No, RH didn't write it. Poor Dono is impudently
lying, as expected from a relativistic fanatic.

Le 18/08/2022 à 21:17, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:14:36 PM UTC-7, imbecile Richard Hachel
> wrote:
>> Le 18/08/2022 à 20:22, "Dono." a écrit :
>> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:18:40 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> And since I don't do like them, since I don't understand what they do and
>> >> why they do it (but the reverse is also true) they think I'm the "crank".
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yep
>> And you, did you understand why it was absurd to say that a man who
>> observes for 9 years an object which moves towards him with an apparent
>> speed of 4c,
>
> There is no such thing as a "speed of 4c". Imbecile.

Et hop, l'autre espèce d'abruti qui s'en vient faire le malin en disant
n'importe quoi.
Quel con!

Mais comment se fait-il qu'il puisse y avoir des cons pareil sur usenet?

Abruti, va!

C'est infernal.

"Mais comment peut-on être aussi con?"
Candide. Voltaire. Acte 17 :25

Et vous comprenez, maintenant, pourquoi un tel désastre, non seulement
sur usenet, mais chez les populations humaines moyennes et même les
scientifiques?

O immonde abruti, relis ce que j'ai écrit. Lentement. Posément.
Doucement.

Merci.

R.H.

Le 18/08/2022 à 21:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 20:22:48 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:18:40 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> > And since I don't do like them, since I don't understand what they do and
>> > why they do it (but the reverse is also true) they think I'm the "crank".
>
> No, RH didn't write it. Poor Dono is impudently
> lying, as expected from a relativistic fanatic.

Ha! Thank you Maciej.

These jerks go so far as to make me lie for having a hold.

Either they're motherfuckers who know what they're doing, and I respect
them as motherfuckers.

Either they are really idiots, and there, one can only be saddened by
their state.

Indeed I made it clear that it was an apparent speed.

The one you see in your telescope.

For nine years of clean time.

And so, if I observe an object moving towards me at 0.8c, ie with an
apparent speed of 4c, I see it moving over 36 ly; and not 7.2 ly.

So the contraction of distances is absurd if you don't understand what
you're doing.

Thank you Maciej.

Finally a reader that reads properly.

It's rare enough to be noticed.

R.H.

On 8/18/2022 12:14 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:08:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/17/2022 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 21:10:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2022 1:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 19:34:25 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/2022 12:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>>>> 1/86400 of Earth turn around its axis, also
>>>>>>> in physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>>>> Once again, the spinning earth makes for a decent proper time clock
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, your opinion is irrelevant, the definition > valid in the time of your idiot guru was as it was
>>>>> and his moronic mumble was inconsistent.
>>>> It is your irrelevant opinion that the then-current definition of the
>>>> second can somehow affect the results.
>>>
>>>> If the traveling twin trip actually took place before the redefinition
>>>> of the second, the traveling twin would notice that the rotation of the
>>>> earth disagreed with local (proper) time measurements
>>>
>>> No, stupid Mike. What he would notice would be
>>> that proper (according to the valid definition of time
>>> unit) time measurements were denying inconsistent
>>> mumble of your idiot guru.
>> No, janitor, in this context "proper time" means the time shown on a
>> clock comoving with the observer/observed.
>
> Yes, stupid Mike, in any context measurement means
> comparing measured value to the unit of measurement.

Well, if such travelers didn't know of SR or even the Doppler Effect and
tried to use the spinning earth as a clock, they'd notice all kinds of
bizarre effects. Why does my wristwatch run slow? Why is my 3 minute egg
always undercooked? Why did the woman riding along with me take over a
year (365+ earth rotations) to give birth to a normal full term baby?
Why is my sleep-wake cycle messed up? Why does it seem like there are
never enough hours in a day? Why is the half-life of this radioactive
element longer than it was on earth, something which is supposed to be
impossible? No, they'd figure out pretty quickly that that particular
time unit is broken, and come up with a fix quickly. And the ghost of
Einstein would smile and say, "That's coordinate time, fools! You should
have used your wristwatch!"

Not that it matters, Einstein's SR and GR papers are independent of the
units of time, whether a second is described as 1/86400 rotation time of
some space rock or 9192631770 periods of a Cs transition wave.

Again, not that I'd expect a janitor to ever understand.

On 8/18/2022 12:31 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/08/2022 à 18:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:08:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>
>>> SR predicts the traveling twin will see the earth rotate too fast
>>
>> Sure, and considering the definition of the unit of time valid when
>> your idiot guru was living and
>> mumbling - his moronic mumble was simply and obviously inconsistent.
>
> It's strange.
>
> I disagree with the last two speakers.
>
> The first who says that we observe the earth rotating faster, with the
> second who says that it rotates at "normal" speed, and a possible third
> who would say that it rotates slower.
>
> All this proves that no one understands this theory, and even the
> greatest specialists in history.
>
No, many understand it. Einstein understood it. I understand it. Many
reading this group understand it. Thousands of physicists understand it.
It can be very confusing since we humans seem to have built-in
"knowledge" that the time is the same everywhere, for everyone. We don't
have evolutionary experience with any SR effect at all, other than the
speed of light itself (which appears to us as infinite).