Le 18/08/2022 à 22:01, Volney a écrit :
> 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).

There is a difference between saying "I think I understood", and "I
understood perfectly".

There are, in fact, several decoys to be understood in the theory of
relativity as stated by Doctor Hachel.

The first decoy is an isochrony decoy.

Man, by nature, thinks that if we are on April 15, 2012 then there is, at
this moment, on Tau Ceti, a simultaneous moment similar to ours, in short,
that at this moment, we are also on April 15 2012 there. And,
reciprocally, someone who would be there, would think that it is
symmetrical, that it is indeed on April 15, 2012, and that we are, us, on
April 15, 2012.

However, this idea is false, it is a decoy.

It does not take into account the anisochronic nature of space: universal
anisochrony.

The second lure is a lure on the speed of light. We are certain that it
moves at c.

This is false (and because of the principle seen above).

What's true is that our measurements are skewed, and to find the actual
correct speed of things between them (not to be confused with absolute
speed) you have to take a simple equation:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

Vo being the observable speed of things.

Vr being the actual speed of things.

The inverse transformation being Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-vo²/c²)

Already this, scientists do not know.

Ditto for a good understanding of Poincaré-Lorentz transformers.

The transformers are correct, but excessively misunderstood.

I have already talked about all this and explained all this.

I am surprised not to arouse more interest than that in front of what I
observe to be like pure physical and mathematical evidence.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:

I'm not adressing the idiotic accusations of plagiarism again Einstein,
which have been debunked for ages.

> ...
> 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.

If you actually read Poincaré and Einstein, and understood what
they wrote :

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhs_0151-4105_2002_num_55_1_2143
(starting at p.68)

You would notice that Poincaré and Einstein synchronisation procedures
are strictly equivalent. You cannot bring Poincaré into your madness.

But you don't care about making up stuff again and again Lengrand,
right? Honesty is not your thing. Neither are physics or math.

> [snip bs]
>
> I advise you to take up the ideas of Poincaré, and see from when it
> really screwed up.

So why don't you do so? Poincaré directly refutes your idiotic claims.

On 8/18/2022 2:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> 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.

You could just as well have left him hoisted by his own petard while I
appreciate the self-satisfaction achieved your way. Blinding oneself
to what is before them is oft demonstrated by a modern day majority of
the Usenet participants.

I claim only that in past years that majority was smaller.

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 21:57:13 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> 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

Only the enlightened ones can see what our Giant Guru
told them to see, sure. Still, his moronic mumble was
inconsistent, as proven above.

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 23:18:04 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>
> I'm not adressing the idiotic accusations of plagiarism again Einstein,

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?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 23:18:04 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>
>> I'm not adressing the idiotic accusations of plagiarism again Einstein,
>
> 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?

Still confused about Gödel's Theorems as I can see. Sad for you Maciej.

Follow-up to sci.logic.

On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 10:25:39 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 23:18:04 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not adressing the idiotic accusations of plagiarism again Einstein,
> >
> > 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?
> Still confused about Gödel's Theorems as I can see. Sad for you Maciej.

Still seeing delusions as I can see. Sad for you Python.