the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

[Richard Hachel]

I was saying, unlike Albert Einstein, that the mathematics of the theory
of relativity is very simple, but that it is full of little traps.
He says the opposite: that it is very difficult, but that there are no
traps.

One of the main traps may be the notion of counter-intuitiveness.

If we ask someone what will happen if we head towards a star at Vo=0.8c,
or two hundred and forty thousand km/s, if I am 9 light years from this
star, the person who does not know anything about it will first say that
nothing happens at all, that the notion of space is absolute, and that, at
that moment, I am simply 9 light years from the star.

This is the level of a twelve-year-old kid who doesn't understand anything
about RR, or the level of a 19th-century physicist.

But we can notice that a big shot today is not necessarily less stupid,
because a big shot of relativity (let's take the case of Python who
deserves to have his intellectual flaws denounced) will, by
"intuitiveness" say that the space between him and the star will contract.

This obviously seems quite intuitive if we have, like him, what a jerk
this Python is, "a little" learned the theory.

But, precisely, it is too intuitive, and the truth will come like a big
slap, because it is terribly counter-intuitive and astonishing (if we
understand the Poincaré transformations correctly).

A bit like the children of the islands of South Asia, who are warned to
quickly climb to the heights
if the sea suddenly recedes, and who immediately do not understand why
they must flee, when the sea is going away. Tsunami concept.

The correct formula is not the one given by Mr. Einstein, and it is not
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
that must be applied, but D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)].

At this moment, the star is not 9 ly (Newton), nor 5.4 ly (Einstein), it
is much, much much further away (I'll let you calculate, because it's
always good to teach by asking students to UNDERSTAND for themselves, and
not stupidly recite what Richard Hachel says), and it is heading towards
the rocket with an apparent speed of 4c.

That a star appears to move away from me very quickly as I increase my
speed towards it is incredibly counter-intuitive.

That's what counter-intuitiveness is.

And it can block 120 years of theoretical physics as long as we don't
believe in it.

R.H.

[JanPB]

Post by Richard Hachel
I was saying, unlike Albert Einstein, that the mathematics of the theory
of relativity is very simple, but that it is full of little traps.
He says the opposite: that it is very difficult, but that there are no
traps.
One of the main traps may be the notion of counter-intuitiveness.
If we ask someone what will happen if we head towards a star at Vo=0.8c,
or two hundred and forty thousand km/s, if I am 9 light years from this
star, the person who does not know anything about it will first say that
nothing happens at all, that the notion of space is absolute, and that, at
that moment, I am simply 9 light years from the star.
This is the level of a twelve-year-old kid who doesn't understand anything
about RR, or the level of a 19th-century physicist.
But we can notice that a big shot today is not necessarily less stupid,
because a big shot of relativity (let's take the case of Python who
deserves to have his intellectual flaws denounced) will, by
"intuitiveness" say that the space between him and the star will contract.
This obviously seems quite intuitive if we have, like him, what a jerk
this Python is, "a little" learned the theory.
But, precisely, it is too intuitive, and the truth will come like a big
slap, because it is terribly counter-intuitive and astonishing (if we
understand the Poincaré transformations correctly).
A bit like the children of the islands of South Asia, who are warned to
quickly climb to the heights
if the sea suddenly recedes, and who immediately do not understand why
they must flee, when the sea is going away. Tsunami concept.
The correct formula is not the one given by Mr. Einstein, and it is not
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
that must be applied, but D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)].
At this moment, the star is not 9 ly (Newton), nor 5.4 ly (Einstein), it
is much, much much further away (I'll let you calculate, because it's
always good to teach by asking students to UNDERSTAND for themselves, and
not stupidly recite what Richard Hachel says), and it is heading towards
the rocket with an apparent speed of 4c.
That a star appears to move away from me very quickly as I increase my
speed towards it is incredibly counter-intuitive.
That's what counter-intuitiveness is.
And it can block 120 years of theoretical physics as long as we don't
believe in it.
R.H.

Just give it up, it's just not something you can do. Just like I don't
run
around pretending I can play Godowski's Chopin transcriptions. I just
don't do it.

Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations
given to you.

--
Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations
given to you.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

I laughed.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"

You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.
I am saddened to see how we can define the concepts so badly, and I
understand why we have been stuck for 120 years without producing much
(except me).
What differentiates physicists from me is that for me, there are not two
effects, one relativistic, the other classical Doppler.
For me, there is only one logical effect.
Not two.
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.
When Römer observes the moons of Jupiter, his measurements are correct:
but he will say: "When you cut a dog's legs, it no longer comes when you
hit its bowl to eat: cutting a dog's legs affects its eardrums".
I would prefer that we speak of internal Doppler effect, and external
Doppler effect. The terms would be more accurate.
Longitudinal Doppler effect, I understand, and it is not necessarily
wrong, but transverse Doppler effect, it is a bit ridiculous as a
denomination (as if there were a transverse external Doppler effect). It
is absurd.
The problem is internal and reciprocal and is diffused to all external
emission, it is not "transverse".

R.H.

[Python]

[snip nonsense]

This is the first of ten "lame physics things" addressed here by the
brilliant Angela Collier:

[snip more nonsense]

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

[snip nonsense]

This is the first of ten "lame physics things" addressed here by the
http://youtu.be/Y-d4ujp_DgY

[snip more nonsense]

Quand Römer (ce n'est pas de sa faute, je pense que tout le monde aurait
réagi comme lui, y compris ma grandeur céleste) a constaté un truc
bizarre (les lunes de Jupiter tournent plus vite quand on s'approche et
moins vite quand on s'éloigne), il a tout de suite pensé à un effet
Doppler dû à la vitesse de la lumière.

Cette proposition intéressante, mais fausse, a complètement fait dévier
le courant de la pensée humaine.

Römer n'a pas compris que c'était là la découverte du premier effet
relativiste : il a pensé à un simple Doppler traditionnel : un peu comme
la transmission du son dans l'air.

Ca n'a pourtant rien à voir, même si l'équation semble la même.

R.H.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

[snip nonsense]

This is the first of ten "lame physics things" addressed here by the
http://youtu.be/Y-d4ujp_DgY

[snip more nonsense]

Quand Römer (ce n'est pas de sa faute, je pense que tout le monde aurait
réagi comme lui, y compris ma grandeur céleste) a constaté un truc
bizarre (les lunes de Jupiter tournent plus vite quand on s'approche et
moins vite quand on s'éloigne), il a tout de suite pensé à un effet
Doppler dû à la vitesse de la lumière.

It is just a light travel time effect.
(which you may call Doppler, if you wish)

Post by Richard Hachel
Cette proposition intéressante, mais fausse, a complètement fait dévier
le courant de la pensée humaine.
Römer n'a pas compris que c'était là la découverte du premier effet
relativiste : il a pensé à un simple Doppler traditionnel : un peu comme
la transmission du son dans l'air.

Relativity has nothing to do with it.
As a matter of fact Newton's absolute time idea
is perfectly adequate to analyse all of Roemer,

Jan

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.

The classical Doppler shift is lambda' = lambda/(1 +/- v). The
relativistic
Doppler equation is lambda' = lambda sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 +/- v/c).
Which,
of course, is lambda' = lambda sqrt[(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) for approaching
and
lambda' = lambda sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c) for receding.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".

It is not a distance effect, and definitely not LC.

Post by Richard Hachel
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is
neither fair nor pretty.

Nope. The transverse Doppler effect is simply time dilation. Your
equation has longitudinal Doppler built into it.

Post by Richard Hachel
I am saddened to see how we can define the concepts so badly, and I
understand why we have been stuck for 120 years without producing much
(except me).

Au contraire, YOU are the one defining concepts badly.

Post by Richard Hachel
What differentiates physicists from me is that for me, there are
not two effects, one relativistic, the other classical Doppler.
For me, there is only one logical effect.
Not two.

Of course there's only one in the REAL world (which isn't classical).

Post by Richard Hachel
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.

Nope.

Post by Richard Hachel
but he will say: "When you cut a dog's legs, it no longer comes when you
hit its bowl to eat: cutting a dog's legs affects its eardrums".
I would prefer that we speak of internal Doppler effect, and external
Doppler effect. The terms would be more accurate.

Nope. There are only longitudinal and transverse.

Post by Richard Hachel
Longitudinal Doppler effect, I understand, and it is not necessarily
wrong, but transverse Doppler effect, it is a bit ridiculous as a
denomination (as if there were a transverse external Doppler effect). It
is absurd.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is internal and reciprocal and is diffused to all external
emission, it is not "transverse".
R.H.

As long as you insist on creating your own definitions, you will not be
able to communicate with Saint Isaac.

“People who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.” – Isaac Asimov

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.

The classical Doppler shift is lambda' = lambda/(1 +/- v). The
relativistic
Doppler equation is lambda' = lambda sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 +/- v/c).
Which,
of course, is lambda' = lambda sqrt[(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) for approaching
and
lambda' = lambda sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c) for receding.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".

It is not a distance effect, and definitely not LC.

Post by Richard Hachel
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is
neither fair nor pretty.

Nope. The transverse Doppler effect is simply time dilation. Your
equation has longitudinal Doppler built into it.

I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the WORD.
The word transverse is inappropriate. It is used to say that it is the
only effect that remains if the movement is transverse, but it is very
inappropriate because the effect exists in all directions, and it is
constant whatever the direction.
This term is neither precise nor beautiful.
The term Internal Doppler Effect seems much more logical and appropriate
to me, because it is an internal effect to the reciprocal speed of the two
frames of reference.

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.

Nope.

Mais bordel, vous allez être poli, oui?

Je vous dis, bordel de merde, que :

The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.

Franchement le comportement de certains commence à me casser les
couilles.

Mais merde!!!

Répondez moi que ce n'est pas ce que dis la théorie, mais ne me dites
pas que ce que je dis n'est pas vrai ou que je me trompe.

Ce comportement est intolérable.

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
but he will say: "When you cut a dog's legs, it no longer comes when you
hit its bowl to eat: cutting a dog's legs affects its eardrums".
I would prefer that we speak of internal Doppler effect, and external
Doppler effect. The terms would be more accurate.

Nope. There are only longitudinal and transverse.

MERDE !!!

Putain, il faut des nerfs.

R.H.

[Python]

...

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Richard Hachel
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.

Nope.

Mais bordel, vous allez être poli, oui?
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.
Franchement le comportement de certains commence à me casser les couilles.
Mais merde!!!
Répondez moi que ce n'est pas ce que dis la théorie, mais ne me dites
pas que ce que je dis n'est pas vrai ou que je me trompe.
Ce comportement est intolérable.

1. Posting in French in an English-speaking group is abusive.
2. Moreover posting profanities and threats is abusive.

Dr. Lengrand, you are not in your doctor's office here. You are
in a public forum.

You cannot edict what is "tolerable" and what is not.

Moreover you are lying: people are not objecting to your fantasies
by only saying that it is not what SR says (which is nevertheless
a perfectly valid objection) but by pointing out fallacies and
contradictions in your own words.

So again: what you write here and there is WRONG, is NOT TRUE,
is CONTRADICTING ITSELF and, most of the time, MAKES NO SENSE
AT ALL.

You are a egomaniac psychopath that shouldn't be allowed to
practice medicine. PERIOD.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
Moreover you are lying: people are not objecting to your fantasies
by only saying that it is not what SR says (which is nevertheless
a perfectly valid objection) but by pointing out fallacies and
contradictions in your own words.

You lies, Jean-Pierre Messager, you lies.

"Mais tu sais que tu mens".

You are the one who is lying by claiming that people criticize what I say
because it is fantasy.
Not at all, it is generally enough to read a little of an author to know
or sense whether it is fantasy or not.
No, no, no, that is not it at all: if people criticize, it is because it
does not go in the direction of their convictions or their teachings,
period.
The criticisms are personal or political.
Never scientific.
"But you know that you are lying" in French in the text.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
Moreover you are lying: people are not objecting to your fantasies
by only saying that it is not what SR says (which is nevertheless
a perfectly valid objection) but by pointing out fallacies and
contradictions in your own words.

You lies, Jean-Pierre Messager, you lies.
"Mais tu sais que tu mens".
You are the one who is lying by claiming that people criticize what I
say because it is fantasy.
Not at all, it is generally enough to read a little of an author to know
or sense whether it is fantasy or not.
No, no, no, that is not it at all: if people criticize, it is because it
does not go in the direction of their convictions or their teachings,
period.

You are highly delusional Richard. It takes only about half a page to
prove that your claims about accelerated frames of reference are:
- logically unsound (invoking tautologies as conditions, claiming
that a frame dependent property implies a frame independent one)
- contradicting previous claims you had on the twin paradox
- contradicting the principle of Relativity

Nothing there is invoking SR in any ways. Your lie is exposed,
again.

You have a psychotic mental bloc (in addition to be a complete
idiot) that prevent you to even consider that something you pull
out of you a** with no justification at all can be wrong.

This is called "arrognorance". On top of that you have no intellectual
integrity and you are a pathological liar. Just like your buddy Donald
J. Trump.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
You are highly delusional Richard. It takes only about half a page to
- logically unsound (invoking tautologies as conditions, claiming
that a frame dependent property implies a frame independent one)
- contradicting previous claims you had on the twin paradox
- contradicting the principle of Relativity
Nothing there is invoking SR in any ways. Your lie is exposed,
again.
You have a psychotic mental bloc (in addition to be a complete
idiot) that prevent you to even consider that something you pull
out of you a** with no justification at all can be wrong.
This is called "arrognorance". On top of that you have no intellectual
integrity and you are a pathological liar. Just like your buddy Donald
J. Trump.

Please stop talking nonsense on forums, you're not even funny anymore.
You don't even know how to use words anymore.
Tautology, truism: evidence that does not need to be demonstrated.
Tautologies can be very useful in theoretical relativity.
Sometimes tautologies or truisms require a little mathematical research
but they still retain their unalterable force.
For example, saying that there are no two natural squares
one of which is double the other, or one of which is triple the other.
In relativity, there are also useful truisms, for example:
"Two conjoined events will be conjoined in all possible frames of
reference".
Or "Two identical watches placed in the same place and in the same
stationary frame of reference will have the same chronotropy and will mark
the same time if they need to measure a universal event".
On the other hand, I did not say that two separate watches, even
stationary ones,
mark the same time. I only said that they beat at the same speed because
they are stationary and therefore have the same chronotropy. That is a
tautology.
Where it gets complicated is when physicists want to be smart and say: "If
they are in the same inertial frame of reference, they
mark the same time at the same present moment, that is a tautology, a
truism". And there, precisely, no. They are making a colossal error in
relativistic concept.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
You are highly delusional Richard. It takes only about half a page to
- logically unsound (invoking tautologies as conditions, claiming
   that a frame dependent property implies a frame independent one)
- contradicting previous claims you had on the twin paradox
- contradicting the principle of Relativity
Nothing there is invoking SR in any ways. Your lie is exposed,
again.
You have a psychotic mental bloc (in addition to be a complete
idiot) that prevent you to even consider that something you pull
out of you a** with no justification at all can be wrong.
This is called "arrognorance". On top of that you have no intellectual
integrity and you are a pathological liar. Just like your buddy Donald
J. Trump.

Please stop talking nonsense on forums, you're not even funny anymore.
You don't even know how to use words anymore.
Tautology, truism: evidence that does not need to be demonstrated.
Tautologies can be very useful in theoretical relativity.
Sometimes tautologies or truisms require a little mathematical research
but they still retain their unalterable force.
For example, saying that there are no two natural squares
one of which is double the other, or one of which is triple the other.
"Two conjoined events will be conjoined in all possible frames of
reference".
Or "Two identical watches placed in the same place and in the same
stationary frame of reference will have the same chronotropy and will
mark the same time if they need to measure a universal event".
On the other hand, I did not say that two separate watches, even
stationary ones,
mark the same time. I only said that they beat at the same speed because
they are stationary and therefore have the same chronotropy. That is a
tautology.
"If they are in the same inertial frame of reference, they
mark the same time at the same present moment, that is a tautology, a
truism". And there, precisely, no. They are making a colossal error in
relativistic concept.

Unrelated babbling won't change anything: your claims have been proven
WRONG and your LIES have been exposed. PERIOD.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
your claims have been proven
WRONG and your LIES have been exposed. PERIOD.

You lies.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
your claims have been proven
WRONG and your LIES have been exposed. PERIOD.

You lies.

This is not an English sentence.

Denial is useless, Richard.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
You lies.

This is not an English sentence.

Yes, you're right.

R.H.

[Tush-Ee Bouloukos]

Post by Python

Mais merde!!! Répondez moi que ce n'est pas ce que dis la théorie, mais
ne me dites pas que ce que je dis n'est pas vrai ou que je me trompe.
Ce comportement est intolérable.

1. Posting in French in an English-speaking group is abusive.

certainly for me, I barely undrestand engilsh. French is lika foreigner
spoken language to me. I am from Greece.

𝗨𝗦_𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻_𝗶𝗻_‘𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁’_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄
Washington should cut off the flow of arms to Kiev’s “neo-Nazi” forces,
Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov has said
https://www.%72%74.com/russia/602315-antonov-us-weapons-kursk/

talking to US?? this man is stupid. Year 2024. Don't remember fucking
Nuland already?? Blown up maritime energy pipelines by nazi nato etc, etc
and etc??

US must rein in ‘terrorist client’ Ukraine, Israel, England, France,
Belgium, Germany, Canada, Australia, Nederland, Morrocco,
Nigeria............

What is with this guy ? Stop smoking or sniffing US propaganda man... US
stands for terrorism. US is the main sposor of terrorism across the world
with ISRAEL...... Playing stupid hey ?

The USA and it's citizens love¹ to strike schools, hospitals, and homes
killing civilians. Also look at Gaza - a major US love¹ project.
¹ In the new world order speech "kill" has been redefined as "love".

[Python]

Post by Tush-Ee Bouloukos

Post by Python

Mais merde!!! Répondez moi que ce n'est pas ce que dis la théorie, mais
ne me dites pas que ce que je dis n'est pas vrai ou que je me trompe.
Ce comportement est intolérable.

1. Posting in French in an English-speaking group is abusive.

certainly for me, I barely undrestand engilsh. French is lika foreigner
spoken language to me. I am from Greece.
𝗨𝗦_𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻_𝗶𝗻_‘𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁’_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄
Washington should cut off the flow of arms to Kiev’s “neo-Nazi” forces,
Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov has said
https://www.%72%74.com/russia/602315-antonov-us-weapons-kursk/
talking to US?? this man is stupid. Year 2024. Don't remember fucking
Nuland already?? Blown up maritime energy pipelines by nazi nato etc, etc
and etc??
US must rein in ‘terrorist client’ Ukraine, Israel, England, France,
Belgium, Germany, Canada, Australia, Nederland, Morrocco,
Nigeria............
What is with this guy ? Stop smoking or sniffing US propaganda man... US
stands for terrorism. US is the main sposor of terrorism across the world
with ISRAEL...... Playing stupid hey ?
The USA and it's citizens love¹ to strike schools, hospitals, and homes
killing civilians. Also look at Gaza - a major US love¹ project.
¹ In the new world order speech "kill" has been redefined as "love".

[note : multiposting removed]

Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1343371";
posting-host="8b34K3JwaDu6UreKGvivVw.user.paganini.bofh.team";
mail-complaints-to="***@bofh.team";
posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";

$ host paganini.bofh.team
paganini.bofh.team has address 94.23.43.182
paganini.bofh.team has IPv6 address 2001:41d0:2:2cb6::1
$ whois 2001:41d0:2:2cb6::1
...
role: OVH Technical Contact
address: OVH SAS
address: 2 rue Kellermann
address: 59100 Roubaix
address: France
admin-c: OK217-RIPE
tech-c: GM84-RIPE
tech-c: SL10162-RIPE
nic-hdl: OTC2-RIPE
abuse-mailbox: ***@ovh.net

Your abuses have been reported.

[Deury Echevarría]

Post by Python

Post by Tush-Ee Bouloukos

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Ce comportement est intolérable.

1. Posting in French in an English-speaking group is abusive.

certainly for me, I barely undrestand engilsh. French is lika foreigner
spoken language to me. I am from Greece.

Your abuses have been reported.

not defending the Greeks, but you just said the M.D. Richard "Hachel"
Lengrand was abusing, or you don't know what you do, in science, fucking
stupid?? This makes you a nazi traitor, automatically.

the ukranes are fighting their lives, to give their country to Blackrock,
that's what you should complain. It shocks me people can be this stupid.

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗿_𝗶𝗻_𝗞𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗸_𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻_–_𝗠𝗢𝗗_(𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢)
The Russian military has released video footage of Lancet strikes on
Kiev’s Kazak and US-made Bradley armored personnel carriers
https://r%74.com/russia/602321-russia-destroys-ukraine-armor-kursk/

Ukraine no more soldier anymore... Where are the bragging French that
wanted to join ? ROFL

[Python]

[same off topic idiotic rant]

Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1345983";
posting-host="+RWjdAW6BMl6BeiW19RE9A.user.paganini.bofh.team";
mail-complaints-to="***@bofh.team";
posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";

Report resent.

[Gilbert Guérin]

Post by Python

[same off topic idiotic rant]

Report resent.

you call people "trolls", you fucking imbecile, and that's not abusing,
defecating your own parade?? You stupid frog. This guy don't know what he
does, in science, math and physics.

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁_–_𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗼
Berlin could include transport infrastructure costs in its defense budget
to maintain spending above the 2% threshold
https://r%74.com/news/602314-germany-nato-defense-spending-target/

The biggest European economy is caving in on itself. Just another evidence
what happens to everyone following orders from USA and Israel.

Tax the RICH LOL as if that would ever happen . . .

I can help Germany here. It is called "creative accounting" so generate
more paperwork at $2,500 per page and you will meet your target which will
look good on paper. This is how USA balances their books.

Disband NATO, a terrorist organization, with proofs. Save billions.
Upgrade the country and civilian infrasture and welfare/health.

Who would have thought Germany gets to this low just to please US, at the
expenses of its own nation!

[Python]

Post by Python

[same off topic idiotic rant]

Report resent.

Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1347994";
posting-host="b5IqLl9OxLb499x6k6ZpuA.user.paganini.bofh.team";
mail-complaints-to="***@bofh.team";
posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";

Report resent. OVH provides a form where you can add up evidence of
abuses for a single case :-)

paganini.bofh.team will be teared down.

[Stony Gergely]

Post by Python
abuses for a single case :-)
paganini.bofh.team will be teared down.

not true, you fucking imbecile with a stinking mouth on your face. You are
abusing in french, calling people "trolls", illegal in most countries
around the world. Your internet provider is informed. When you disappear
from sci.physics.relativity, we already know why.

here some proper science, before you leave, you stupid uneducated
uncivilized frog:

𝗨𝗦_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_‘𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝘄𝗮𝗿’_𝗼𝗻_𝗺𝗲_𝗮𝘀_𝗷𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_–_𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁_𝗥𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿
The RT contributor’s house was raided by the FBI on Wednesday
https://www.r%74.com/news/602327-scott-ritter-comments-fbi-raid/

Now, it is certified. The US has become a BANANA republic. No democracy
and no free speech. A superpower that has been rendered impotent by AIPAC.

RT has published two scary stories today. One about the US spying on Tulsi
Gabbard and the other on Scott's house being raided. It is no longer safe
for anyone to speak the truth in the US. This is a dictatorship, no longer
a democracy!

That law is about lobbying. I didn't even know Ritter engaged in lobbying.
I thought he was just a YouTuber now.

Blinken is a zionist working for Jews. Arrest him.

What a farce. Our dozens of Senators and Congress members proudly and
openly work for Israel and no one has ever been charges.

This was part of Netti Yahoo's demand during his visit.

Nothing more dangerous to the US government than someone doing real
journalism, instead of government stenography

[Python]

Post by Stony Gergely

Post by Python
abuses for a single case :-)
paganini.bofh.team will be teared down.

not true,

Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1356958";
posting-host="b5IqLl9OxLb499x6k6ZpuA.user.paganini.bofh.team";
mail-complaints-to="***@bofh.team";
posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.9.1

Yes it will :-)

[Porcher Leblanc]

Post by Python

Post by Stony Gergely

Post by Python
paganini.bofh.team will be teared down.

not true,

Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1356958";
posting-host="b5IqLl9OxLb499x6k6ZpuA.user.paganini.bofh.team";
posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.9.1
Yes it will

amazing, this fucking inbreed imbecile, continues to prove. Here's the
genocide in relativity. They hail to the pervert Einstine, ffs. Otherwise
their professor position are in danger. What more proofs are you asking me
for?? What are you crazy??

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀_𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲_𝗯𝘆_𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗯𝗲_𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘃𝗲
Finance chief Bezalel Smotrich says allowing two million Gazans to go
without food could be a way to defeat Hamas
https://www.r%74.com/news/602338-starving-gazans-international-response/

There are very odd similarities betwen Israel and Ukriane leadership
behavior... (lol)

Yet the world watches and does nothing. The US-EU zionist consortium " I
see nothing, nothing!" and Middle-East countries are cowards. While a
Genocide of millions is happening.

That place is full of devils wearing human skin. 100% savage criminals.

immediate ICC arrest warrent needed for him then. ICC??? You've been
asleep at the wheel.

Well, I've been watching France24 for the last couple of hours and not one
word about it!! Fucking stupid frogs.

This little midget is a little Demon that needs a good exorcism!

Nazi Jews, and that is the definition of Zionists and their agenda. He
said that without any consideration for his own religion, because the
Zionists believe only in money, satan and not in God. Their God and
religion is the money and the satan, satan first.

If I recall the israeli minister ''Azazel'' Smotrich is a russian Jew.. I
wonder if he still has a russian passport and is still a russian citizen..
Then again a lot of Russian Jews are sadly psychopathic when it comes to
Israel and human rights of Palestinians... Then again this is certainly
the type of statement Waffen SS made in the 40s as they starved to death
Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto..... Nothing very to be proud hey as a Russian
Jew to see nuts like that immigrate to Israel and behave 100% like NAZIS.
Is this ''self defense'' Monisieur Lavrov ? Being sacastic of course view
this nut is defense minister. Maybe Bibi could create for a Warsaw Ghetto
Minister just for him..... It indeed smell very bad but then again zionist
extremists don't mind starving to death 2 000 000 people specially if they
are not part of their psychopathic tribe.

The worst kind, with the ones from Poland and Eastern Europe robing the
people along centuries.

[Python]

Post by Stony Gergely

Post by Python
abuses for a single case :-)
paganini.bofh.team will be teared down.

not true

Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1356958";
posting-host="b5IqLl9OxLb499x6k6ZpuA.user.paganini.bofh.team";
mail-complaints-to="***@bofh.team";
posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";


True. It will :-)

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

1>

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.

It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,

Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

1>

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.

It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan

The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear
concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.
You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn
on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.
I will never understand all this madness.
It is not mass that is relative, but speed, THEREFORE the quantity of
movement, therefore energy.
The notion of rest mass is useless at all, except to make physicists look
like Laurel and Hardy type comedians.
No need for that to give a beautiful, physical, mathematical, coherent,
true theory.
Human beings are both idiots and pedants.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence
of clear concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal
mass, and other such joys. You do like Hachel, you keep it
simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.

Physicists maintain that mass is invariant, so you're preaching
to the choir. This was maintained in physics textbooks 60 years
ago.

Post by Richard Hachel
I will never understand all this madness.

Knowledge doesn't spring on the scene fully fleshed out. It comes
little by little, here a little, there a little.

Post by Richard Hachel
It is not mass that is relative, but speed, THEREFORE the quantity
of movement, therefore energy.
The notion of rest mass is useless at all, except to make physicists
look like Laurel and Hardy type comedians.

You're looking back on an earlier era that hadn't learned what we
know today. Have some humility, because people a century from now
will look back at us and laugh.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence
of clear concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal
mass, and other such joys.  You do like Hachel, you keep it
simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.

Physicists maintain that mass is invariant, so you're preaching

It is now trendy, but holy Feynman with many others
promoted the opposite.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

1>

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.

It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan

The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear
concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.

Indeed, but they did not know that, in 1905.
So the experimental discussion was in terms
of longitudinal and transverse masses.
(observed motions were interpreted using Newtonian mechanics)

Later on the same things were renamed to relativistic masses,
(also transverse and longitudinal)
until prople realised that the need for all those disappeared
when the whole theory was formulated relativistically throughhout,
in terms of 4-vectors.

Post by Richard Hachel
You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn
on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.

Indeed, you are almost there,

Jan

[snip more nonsense to be forgotten]

[JanPB]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

1>

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.

It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan

The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear
concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.
You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn
on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.

Give it up, Richard. What you post here and on other threads has no
relation to anything. You are debating exclusively the chimeras
of your imagination, your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full
of endless reflections of self-made nonsense.

Post by Richard Hachel
I will never understand all this madness.

Exactly. You are running in circles constantly and nothing for
you makes sense in this domain. That's fine. Not everyone has to
be a physicist. I am not a virtuoso pianist and I can live with
that awareness extremely comfortably and well.

Post by Richard Hachel
Human beings are both idiots and pedants.

No, it's you.

Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it becomes
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of
convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..

--
Jan

[Ernie Sokolowski]

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.

Give it up, Richard. What you post here and on other threads has no
relation to anything. You are debating exclusively the chimeras of your
imagination, your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full of endless
reflections of self-made nonsense.

give it up yourself, I just realize these frogs around here are mental
retarded. They believe they undrestand something. Here some american
culture.

𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/4rYKB6RZLgVx

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Ernie Sokolowski

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.

Give it up, Richard. What you post here and on other threads has no
relation to anything. You are debating exclusively the chimeras of your
imagination, your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full of endless
reflections of self-made nonsense.

give it up yourself, I just realize these frogs around here are mental
retarded. They believe they undrestand something. Here some american
culture.
𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/4rYKB6RZLgVx

This more interestingfrom your website:

"NATO forces enter Russian territory in Kursk"

https://old.bitchute.com/video/SajAQTnyvf8H/

Is this real?

The sound is actually US-English, as far as I can tell.


TH

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ernie Sokolowski

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.

Give it up, Richard. What you post here and on other threads has no
relation to anything. You are debating exclusively the chimeras of your
imagination, your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full of endless
reflections of self-made nonsense.

give it up yourself, I just realize these frogs around here are mental
retarded. They believe they undrestand something. Here some american
culture.
𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/4rYKB6RZLgVx

"NATO forces enter Russian territory in Kursk"
https://old.bitchute.com/video/SajAQTnyvf8H/
Is this real?
The sound is actually US-English, as far as I can tell.
TH

I think they did go into Russia. Not sure how long they can stay
there... ;^o

[Clas Babanin]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ernie Sokolowski
𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/4rYKB6RZLgVx

"NATO forces enter Russian territory in Kursk"
https://old.bitchute.com/video/SajAQTnyvf8H/ Is this real?
The sound is actually US-English, as far as I can tell.

correct observation, which proves one more time the nazi nato is a
terrorist organization. But the fucking gearmony is worse, they make the
rules as they go, saying that it's legal for nazi capitalist Blackrock
ukrane to attack terroristic INSIDE other countries. They will fucking pay
for what they deserve. The gearmons, like the french, are perverted
𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙨 gay from polakia or Gay-Aviv, trying to speak engilsh or
italian. That's how gearmon and french became into existence.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝘆_𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗿_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗞𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗸_𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻_–_𝗠𝗢𝗗_(𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢)
A Russian Lancet drone took out a Soviet-era tank during fighting near the
border, the Defense Ministry has said
https://www.r%74.com/r%75%73%73ia/602443-ukrainian-tank-destroyed-kursk/

"Bloody Zelensky, he told us we never catch fire in one of these"!!

No mercy...toast them...

america supplied the intel choosing russias weak spot ? ends up to no
avail. a futile counter offensive ?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand

the

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
explanations given to you.

1>

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh.  Maybe an OMG!  Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right.  Well, maybe a laugh would be

appropriate,

too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't

length

contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo.  LC is NOT so dependent.  It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.

It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan

The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear
concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.
You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn
on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.

Give it up, Richard. What you post here and on other threads has no
relation to anything. You are debating exclusively the chimeras
of your imagination, your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full
of endless reflections of self-made nonsense.

Give it up, Jan. The mumble of your idiot guru
was not even consistent, it has been proven
and the only thing you can do about the proof
is pretending that you didn't notice.
Your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full
of endless reflections of both self-made and
made by your insane guru nonsense.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

1>

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.

It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan

The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear
concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.
You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn
on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge,
deflects it, and does not take it further.

Give it up, Richard. What you post here and on other threads has no
relation to anything. You are debating exclusively the chimeras
of your imagination, your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full
of endless reflections of self-made nonsense.

Post by Richard Hachel
I will never understand all this madness.

Exactly. You are running in circles constantly and nothing for
you makes sense in this domain. That's fine. Not everyone has to
be a physicist. I am not a virtuoso pianist and I can live with
that awareness extremely comfortably and well.

Post by Richard Hachel
Human beings are both idiots and pedants.

No, it's you.
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it becomes
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of
convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan

It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology,
philosophy, politics, scientific theory).
Prove to me that a single equation or a single concept that I have given
is not mathematically coherent, or prove to me that a single thing that I
have said can be experimentally rejected.
I have no worries about the battles that may be made against me, since
they are already won in advance on the theoretical point (the RR is
mathematically absurd from the outset if you use apparent speeds even in a
simple Langevin, it therefore has no chance of being true as taught).
Similarly, the concept of direct-live is absolutely obvious if we
understand that instantaneous information transport is possible in certain
geometric conditions, that is to say longitudinal in the source-receiver
direction.
The future will show that I am right.
But we will have to go further, and perhaps artificial intelligence, which
has no trilili, will have to explain, which would be an enormous advance
in the history of humanity, why man, against himself, always refuses new
tables as Friedrich Nietzsche said.
The problem is more "we do not want this man to reign over us" rather than
"is universal anisochrony physical? or, "is there a relativity of the
internal chronotropy of watches by change of reference frame?
We do not answer questions, we attack man.
This is not scientific.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by JanPB

Post by JanPB
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it

becomes

Post by JanPB
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of
convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb
a tree,
it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” -- Albert
Einstein

Post by JanPB
It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology,
philosophy, politics, scientific theory).

At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for the PTB to
come around. But it didn't happen until experimental evidence
prevailed.

Post by JanPB
Prove to me that a single equation or a single concept that I have given
is not mathematically coherent,

Do you mean like this:

"The correct formula is not the one given by Mr. Einstein, and it is not
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) that must be applied, but
D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)]."

"Coherency" is not the issue (even though your two equations are mixing
two
different things: length contraction and relativistic Doppler effect),
but
equations must describe what is.

Post by JanPB
or prove to me that a single thing that I have said can be
experimentally
rejected.

D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²), length contraction, is the one side of the coin of
nonsimultaneity, time dilation (TD) is the other. TD and nonsimultaneity
are experimentally confirmed, so LC must be accepted on logic alone.

However, it has been shown that LC is responsible for magnetism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Magnetic_forces

Post by JanPB
I have no worries about the battles that may be made against me, since
they are already won in advance on the theoretical point (the RR is
mathematically absurd from the outset if you use apparent speeds even in
a simple Langevin, it therefore has no chance of being true as taught).

It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
"apparent speed" is tenuous. To me, it means an optical illusion, which
has no place in solving relativity problems. Velocity is the correct
term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where t2 and t1 are
read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and x1, respectively,
as the object whose velocity is meing measured passes those points.

Post by JanPB
Similarly, the concept of direct-live is absolutely obvious if we
understand that instantaneous information transport is possible in
certain geometric conditions, that is to say longitudinal in the
source-receiver direction.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "direct-live" neither do I know
what you mean by "certain geometric conditions" -- but I doubt that
"instantaneous information transport" can be achieved.

Post by JanPB
The future will show that I am right.

Only by tachyons or warp metrics, perhaps.

Post by JanPB
....
"is universal anisochrony physical? or, "is there a relativity of the
internal chronotropy of watches by change of reference frame?
We do not answer questions, we attack man.
This is not scientific.
R.H.

I replied to your assertions. You seldom seem to have questions:

“Unanswered questions are far less dangerous than unquestioned answers.”
-- Collectively Conscious

“A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.”
– Paulo Coelho

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by JanPB

Post by JanPB
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it

becomes

Post by JanPB
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of
convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb
a tree,
it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” -- Albert
Einstein

Post by JanPB
It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology,
philosophy, politics, scientific theory).

At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for the PTB to
come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental evidence
prevailed.

Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.

[gharnagel]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.

Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.

Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))

[Python]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.

Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.

Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))

It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.

IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.

Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.

Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))

It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".

Ah, te voilà, toi?

Je te croyais disparu sous la claque que tu t'es prise, et qui portait sur
Nostradamus.

Je t'ai demandé d'expliquer le quatrain (ce que j'ai fait, et qui n'a
rien à voir avec tes conneries de Louis XIV) et de me montrer si, avec
tes immenses talents d'historiens ou de critique, tu pouvais me prouver
que cela avait été écris avant 1660.

Magnes toi un peu les couilles, au lieu de faire le con sur usenet.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.

Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.

Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))

It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".

Ah, te voilà, toi?
Je te croyais disparu sous la claque que tu t'es prise, et qui portait
sur Nostradamus.
Je t'ai demandé d'expliquer le quatrain (ce que j'ai fait, et qui n'a
rien à voir avec tes conneries de Louis XIV) et de me montrer si, avec
tes immenses talents d'historiens ou de critique, tu pouvais me prouver
que cela avait été écris avant 1660.
Magnes toi un peu les couilles, au lieu de faire le con sur usenet.

[for non French-speaking readers: M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand is
babbling some unclear claims about Nostradamus' "predictions" here]

I don't give a sh*t on this new stupid hobby of yours. I would,
anyway, be concerned if I lived in Saint-Izan-de-Soudiac and a
local country Doctor was fond of this kind of demented nonsense.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
I don't give a sh*t on this new stupid hobby of yours. I would,
anyway, be concerned if I lived in Saint-Izan-de-Soudiac and a
local country Doctor was fond of this kind of demented nonsense.

Moo, you're a small dick! A pathetic lying Python!
Lying Python is a poor stinking Python.
I never said I was crazy about this kind of prediction, I even said it
wasn't in my rational range.
It's written in the text, dirty liar.

Meuh t'eu qu'un bouffon, hé, un guignol.

Et menteur comme Pinocchio, en plus.

La question qui était posée, était : "Il me parait que ce texte, que
j'ai décodé, parce que j'ai une grosse bite (miam, c'est bon quand
même), n'a pas pu être écrite rationnellement au XVI°siècle, mais
obligatoirement en fin du XVII° ou dans le courant du XVIII°.

Autrement est impossible.

La question était : "Est ce un faux?" ce qui me parait quand même le
plus probable, et de loin.

Question subsidiaire, pourquoi en avoir caché le sens, si l'on voulait
tromper l'auditoire, puisque le décodage est extraordinaire pour
l'époque?

T'euh qu'un guignol, un bouffon, a liar, a skinker Python.

"Mais tu sais que tu mens..."
Johnny

R.H.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.

Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.

Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))

It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".

Ah, te voilà, toi?
Je te croyais disparu sous la claque que tu t'es prise, et qui portait
sur Nostradamus.
Je t'ai demandé d'expliquer le quatrain (ce que j'ai fait, et qui n'a
rien à voir avec tes conneries de Louis XIV) et de me montrer si, avec
tes immenses talents d'historiens ou de critique, tu pouvais me prouver
que cela avait été écris avant 1660.
Magnes toi un peu les couilles, au lieu de faire le con sur usenet.

[for non French-speaking readers: M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand is
babbling some unclear claims about Nostradamus' "predictions" here]

Most of Nostradamus's "predictions" are so vague and unclesr that you
can interpret them any way you like. However, there is one that stands
out:

L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roy d'effrayeur
Ressusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois
Avant après Mars règner par bonheur.

Lines 2 to 4 are as unclear as everything else that Nostradamus wrote,
but line 1 is interesting, as it gives a very precise date, the 7th
month of 1999, far in the future for Nostradamus, but fairly recent for
us. What could it refer to? For the simple-minded fantasists he could
be predicting the death of Hassan 2, King of Morocco, but if you ask
what event of July 1999 could Nostradamus possibly have predicted, the
only rational answer is the eclipse of the sun on 11th August 1999. In
his time there was enough astronomical knowledge and methods of
calculation to predict an eclipse in 1999. Before you object that
August is not the 7th month, bear in mind that the Gregorian calendar
was introduced some time after Nostradamus.

Drifting even further from the topic, today "nonante" is regarded as
typical of Belgian French, but apparently it was more widely used in
Nostradamus's time.

Post by Python
I don't give a sh*t on this new stupid hobby of yours. I would,
anyway, be concerned if I lived in Saint-Izan-de-Soudiac and a
local country Doctor was fond of this kind of demented nonsense.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Most of Nostradamus's "predictions" are so vague and unclesr that you
can interpret them any way you like. However, there is one that stands
L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roy d'effrayeur
Ressusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois
Avant après Mars règner par bonheur.
Lines 2 to 4 are as unclear as everything else that Nostradamus wrote,
but line 1 is interesting, as it gives a very precise date, the 7th
month of 1999, far in the future for Nostradamus, but fairly recent for
us. What could it refer to? For the simple-minded fantasists he could
be predicting the death of Hassan 2, King of Morocco, but if you ask
what event of July 1999 could Nostradamus possibly have predicted, the
only rational answer is the eclipse of the sun on 11th August 1999. In
his time there was enough astronomical knowledge and methods of
calculation to predict an eclipse in 1999. Before you object that
August is not the 7th month, bear in mind that the Gregorian calendar
was introduced some time after Nostradamus.
Drifting even further from the topic, today "nonante" is regarded as
typical of Belgian French, but apparently it was more widely used in
Nostradamus's time.

For now I think it is very likely that Nostradamus is a crook, contrary to
what Stinker Python says.
I add this: To the question, master, how to interpret your prophecies?
Nostradamus answered: First, you must destroy them.
Two possible interpretations.
1. It is bullshit for suckers, you must burn it.
2. First, you must destroy the text which means nothing in itself.
Which would mean that textually, word for word, the text is
incomprehensible and completely idiotic.
Let's take the last word here "happiness", Nostradamus did not write
"Bonheur" but "Bon heur".
As he wrote the word resurrect, which can be cut into "resusci-ter". We
then take "Heur" and "Ter" and we have "heurter", etc...
We can then obtain other texts, but it is indecodable given the number of
possible permutations and the absence of any other indication. In any
case, it is certain that nothing should be taken literally or word for
word.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Most of Nostradamus's "predictions" are so vague and unclesr that you
can interpret them any way you like. However, there is one that stands
L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roy d'effrayeur
Ressusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois
Avant après Mars règner par bonheur.
Lines 2 to 4 are as unclear as everything else that Nostradamus wrote,
but line 1 is interesting, as it gives a very precise date, the 7th
month of 1999, far in the future for Nostradamus, but fairly recent
for us. What could it refer to? For the simple-minded  fantasists he
could be predicting the death of Hassan 2, King of Morocco, but if you
ask what event of July 1999 could Nostradamus possibly have predicted,
the only rational answer is the eclipse of the sun on 11th August
1999. In his time there was enough astronomical knowledge and methods
of calculation to predict an eclipse in 1999. Before you object that
August is not the 7th month, bear in mind that the Gregorian calendar
was introduced some time after Nostradamus.
Drifting even further from the topic, today "nonante" is regarded as
typical of Belgian French, but apparently it was more widely used in
Nostradamus's time.

For now I think it is very likely that Nostradamus is a crook, contrary
to what Stinker Python says.

I do think that Nostradamus is a crook, so are you.

Post by Richard Hachel
I add this: To the question, master, how to interpret your prophecies?
Nostradamus answered: First, you must destroy them.
Two possible interpretations.
1. It is bullshit for suckers, you must burn it.
2. First, you must destroy the text which means nothing in itself.

There's not a big difference between these two "interpretations".

Post by Richard Hachel
Which would mean that textually, word for word, the text is
incomprehensible and completely idiotic.
Let's take the last word here "happiness", Nostradamus did not write
"Bonheur" but "Bon heur".
As he wrote the word resurrect, which can be cut into "resusci-ter". We
then take "Heur" and "Ter" and we have "heurter", etc...

Oh dear... And you are practicing medecine! Help!

Post by Richard Hachel
We can then obtain other texts, but it is indecodable given the number
of possible permutations and the absence of any other indication. In any
case, it is certain that nothing should be taken literally or word for
word.

Whatever...

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.

Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.

Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))

It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".

See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.

And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.


And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[gharnagel]

Post by Python

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.

Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.

Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))

It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".

Yep, I often give him the benefit of the doubt and give him either
option. It's a conundrum to determine which one is worse. If he's
a liar AND God exists, then he goes to hell. So it's better to be
stupid. OTOH, if God doesn't exist, it's worse to be stupid.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Python

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for
the PTB to come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental
evidence prevailed.

Only such an idiot believe these nonsensical
ideological lies, Harrie, and the mumble of
the idiot was not even consistent.

Wozzie has told so many lies, he can't discern truth from his
outrageous fantasies :-))

It is actually not a lie if he really believes his fallacious claims
to be true.
IMHO he is demented and dumb enough to actually believe his unsound
"arguments".

Yep, I often give him the benefit of the doubt and give him either
option.  It's a conundrum to determine which one is worse.  If he's
a liar AND God exists, then he goes to hell.  So it's better to be
stupid.  OTOH, if God doesn't exist, it's worse to be stupid.

It's amusing that such a piece of lying
shit is believing God, you know. Sure,
Harrie, your lies won't be punished cause
you're lying for a just cause.

How about your lie of GPS clocks readings?
When reading of the one from Earth will be
2024-08-31 17:00:00,000000000- what will
be the reading of the one from the
satellite? Numbers, please.

Still no answer, Harrie? Of course.

[gharnagel]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
Yep, I often give him the benefit of the doubt and give him either
option.  It's a conundrum to determine which one is worse.  If he's
a liar AND God exists, then he goes to hell.  So it's better to be
stupid.  OTOH, if God doesn't exist, it's worse to be stupid.

It's amusing that such a piece of lying
shit is believing God, you know.

Wozzie is projecting again :-))

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Sure, Harrie, your lies won't be punished cause
you're lying for a just cause.

No such thing. Wozzie is projecting again, believing
HIS lies are in a "just" cause.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
How about your lie of GPS clocks readings?
When reading of the one from Earth will be
2024-08-31 17:00:00,000000000- what will
be the reading of the one from the
satellite? Numbers, please.
Still no answer, Harrie? Of course.

I answered, but Walnut-brain Wozzie is too stupid
to understand. He's dissembling again, asking what
the reading FROM the satellite is, not the reading
AT the satellite. There's no one there to read it,
but even Wozzie knows the answer: it won't agree
with what was received on earth (unless it was read
at the time that the clock was updated FROM earth).
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered. He's only a greasy monkey.

[Python]

Le 10/08/2024 à 18:56, gharnagel a écrit :
...

Post by gharnagel
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered.  He's only a greasy monkey.

Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)

Wozniak event confessed to have tried to teach once and miserably
failed. Of course he attributed the fault to students.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python
...

Post by gharnagel
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered.  He's only a greasy monkey.

Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)

My employers are not as certain as you are,
poor slandering piece of shit.
Speaking of engineering - do you often start
your project from shouting "common sense is a
collection of prejudices!!!!" as your idiot
guru taught you?

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by gharnagel
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered.  He's only a greasy monkey.

Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)

My employers are not as certain as you are,

Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?

Who are your employers by the way :-D ?

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Speaking of engineering - do you often start
your project from shouting "common sense is a
collection of prejudices!!!!"

This is not quite a starting point, but it may make
perfect sense in a lot of situations. You should know.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor slandering piece of shit.

Nice signature Wozniak!

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by gharnagel
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered.  He's only a greasy monkey.

Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)

My employers are not as certain as you are,

Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?

Somehow.

Post by Python
Who are your employers by the way :-D ?

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Speaking of engineering - do you often start
your project from shouting "common sense is a
collection of prejudices!!!!"

This is not quite a starting point, but it may make
perfect sense in a lot of situations. You should know.

Like?

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by gharnagel
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered.  He's only a greasy monkey.

Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)

My employers are not as certain as you are,

Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?

Somehow.

Maybe because you are not an engineer but a liar?

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
Who are your employers by the way :-D ?

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Speaking of engineering - do you often start
your project from shouting "common sense is a
collection of prejudices!!!!"

This is not quite a starting point, but it may make
perfect sense in a lot of situations. You should know.

Like?

You should know.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by gharnagel
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered.  He's only a greasy monkey.

Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)

My employers are not as certain as you are,

Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?

Somehow.

Maybe because you are not an engineer but a liar?

No.

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
Who are your employers by the way :-D ?

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Speaking of engineering - do you often start
your project from shouting "common sense is a
collection of prejudices!!!!"

This is not quite a starting point, but it may make
perfect sense in a lot of situations. You should know.

Like?

You should know.

Like doctoring some evidence for some inconsistent
mumble of a insane crazie?

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by gharnagel
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered.  He's only a greasy monkey.

Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)

My employers are not as certain as you are,

Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?

Somehow.

Maybe because you are not an engineer but a liar?

No.

This is far the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.

Or even if you wear the title you only had, like Thomas Heger, a
career focused on management (even if this sound horrific too, given
your behavior here).

No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by gharnagel
Wozzie proves once again that he's not an engineer,
because engineers would understand when something
was engineered.  He's only a greasy monkey.

Thomas Heger and Maciej Wozniak may have a diploma giving
them the title of "engineer". Nevertheless it is 100% certain
that involving them in any engineering task would lead to
a disaster :-)

My employers are not as certain as you are,

Hmmm... As an engineer there should be some part of your work
publicly available (code, papers, courses, whatever) somewhere.
I do publish some of my work. How come you didn't :-) ?

Somehow.

Maybe because you are not an engineer but a liar?

No.

This is far the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.

Of course it can be drawn, particularly
by a piece of fanatic slandering shit.

Post by Python
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.

My employers have different opinion,
poor piece of fanatic slandering shit.

[Python]

Le 10/08/2024 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.

My employers have different opinion,

Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?

Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor  piece of fanatic slandering shit.

Nice signature!

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python
...

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.

My employers have different opinion,

Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?

slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/

a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.

My employers have different opinion,

Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?

slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement.

It is absolutely impossible to damage your reputation, given the
form and substance of your posts here.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.

My employers have different opinion,

Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?

slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement.

It is absolutely impossible to damage your reputation, given the

bottles of vodka you lie about, stinker.
Nothing unexpected from a Shit's doggie,
of course - slandering, doctoring the
evidence and so on - that's what it's
training you for.


And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.

My employers have different opinion,

Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?

slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement.

It is absolutely impossible to damage your reputation, given the

bottles of vodka you lie about

Seriously, assuming you are drunk when posting nonsensical rant is
actually better for your reputation than assuming you are not.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
No sane person would assign to you any kind of task involving rational
thinking more than once.

My employers have different opinion,

Do you have imaginary friends too Wozniak?

slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement.

It is absolutely impossible to damage your reputation, given the

bottles of vodka you lie about

Seriously, assuming you are drunk when posting nonsensical rant is
actually better for your reputation than assuming you are not.

Keep raving, spitting and slandering, trash,
I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to
be not even consistent, so what else can you
do.
Good Shit's doggie, good.

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Richard Hachel]

poor stinker.

Absolutely.

"His name is stinker Python".

Wygląda na to, że Jean-Pierre zamierza nakręcić film w Hollywood. Film
nosi tytuł „The Stinky Python” i będzie koprodukcją
francusko-amerykańską.
To powinno zdetronizować „Ben Hura”.

Fais attention, il dit des conneries sur le pape, sur les polonais, sur
Donald Trump, sur les anti-indépendantistes bretons, sur moi, sur les
sionistes, et sur Nostradamus.

Il est infernal.

Il ment encore plus qu'il respire.

He's a real stinker Python.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by gharnagel
Yep, I often give him the benefit of the doubt and give him either
option.  It's a conundrum to determine which one is worse.  If he's
a liar AND God exists, then he goes to hell.  So it's better to be
stupid.  OTOH, if God doesn't exist, it's worse to be stupid.

It's amusing that such a piece of lying
shit is believing  God, you know.

Wozzie is projecting again :-))

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Sure, Harrie, your lies won't be punished cause
you're lying for a just cause.

No such thing.  Wozzie is projecting again, believing
HIS lies are in a "just" cause.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
How about your lie of GPS clocks readings?
When reading of the one from Earth will be
2024-08-31 17:00:00,000000000-  what will
be the reading of the one from the
satellite? Numbers, please.
Still no answer, Harrie? Of course.

I answered, but Walnut-brain Wozzie is too stupid
to understand.  He's dissembling again, asking what
the reading FROM the satellite is, not the reading
AT the satellite.

Harrie, poor lying trash, you're an idiot, sure,
but even such an idiot should notice that what
you wrote is not any number - and what I asked
you was a number.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by JanPB

Post by JanPB
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it

becomes

Post by JanPB
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of
convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb
a tree,
it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." -- Albert
Einstein

You have a verifiable source for that of course?

Post by JanPB
It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology,
philosophy, politics, scientific theory).

At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for the PTB to
come around.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.
Einstein 1905 (relativity) had an immediate impact
with those who mattered. (Planck, Lorentz, Abraham, Poincaré, etc.)
They saw that a fundamental breakthrough had been achieved,
whether they agreed with it or not,
and that relativity had to be reckoned with.

He was promoted at Bern, got a sabbatical,
and job offers for academic positions started coming.
First at Bern, but in 1909 Zurich lured him away from Bern
with a specially created professorship.
All this is hardly ignoring.

But it didn't happen until experimental evidence
prevailed.

Even worse nonsense. Einstein 1905 was primarily
a reinterpretation of what was known already,
tying it all togeter.
(Michelson, partial dragging, Maxwell's eqns. etc.)

And the only result that could be tested directly at the time
was the velocity dependence of the electron mass.
(as it was then called)
Here Einstein had nothing new to offer either,
for he reproduced the result already obtained by Lorentz 1904.
(albeit in a very different way)

The results of the experiments were a disaster:
Kaufmann 1905 claimed to have decisively falsified Lorentz,
hence Einstein, and hence the principle of relativity.
Lorentz was in despair, Einstein was not impressed.

It wasn't until 1909, when Einstein already held a professorship,
that the experiments were finally beaten into order.
(and in full agreement with Lorentz/Einstein)

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by JanPB

Post by JanPB
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it

becomes

Post by JanPB
an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of
convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
--
Jan

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb
a tree,
it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." -- Albert
Einstein

You have a verifiable source for that of course?

Post by JanPB
It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology,
philosophy, politics, scientific theory).

At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for the PTB to
come around.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.
Einstein 1905 (relativity) had an immediate impact
with those who mattered. (Planck, Lorentz, Abraham, Poincaré, etc.)
They saw that a fundamental breakthrough had been achieved,

they just didn't notice the mumble of the idiot
was not even consistent.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
Again, I don't know what you mean by "direct-live" neither do I know
what you mean by "certain geometric conditions" -- but I doubt that
"instantaneous information transport" can be achieved.

It is realized universally every day.
This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in this
telescope, I perceive them because, precisely, it is about instantaneous
transmission of information.
This is what we call direct-live.
If someone could breathe a little and blow, and no longer conceive the
world stupidly, that is to say as taught by physicists who have understood
nothing at all about Poincaré's transformations and where that should
have led them, rather than inventing an abstract Minkowskian and
ridiculous geometry, then we could perhaps fecilely carry out tests of
instantaneous transmission of information, thanks, perhaps, to games of
mirrors and polarizing glasses. A bit like Aspect had done.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
Again, I don't know what you mean by "direct-live" neither do I know
what you mean by "certain geometric conditions" -- but I doubt that
"instantaneous information transport" can be achieved.

It is realized universally every day.
This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in this
telescope, I perceive them because, precisely, it is about instantaneous
transmission of information.

Doesn't happen. Ever. There's always time delay due to speed of light.
Telescopes look into the past of what they see. And the moon you see is
more than a second old. Even the horse is older.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is what we call direct-live.

Which proves to be nonsense.

Post by Richard Hachel
If someone could breathe a little and blow, and no longer conceive the
world stupidly,

Pot, kettle, black.

Post by Richard Hachel
that is to say as taught by physicists who have understood nothing at
all about Poincaré's transformations and where that should have led
them, rather than inventing an abstract Minkowskian and ridiculous
geometry, then we could perhaps fecilely carry out tests of
instantaneous transmission of information, thanks, perhaps, to games
of mirrors and polarizing glasses. A bit like Aspect had done.
R.H.

I'm afraid you've really gone of the deep end here, Richard.

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
"apparent speed" is tenuous. To me, it means an optical illusion,
which has no place in solving relativity problems. Velocity is the
correct term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where
t2 and t1 are read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and
x1, respectively, as the object whose velocity is meing measured
passes those points.

This is a magnificent definition, and its simplicity and truth deserve
to be taught in all high schools in the world.
I'm not kidding.
Now once this is taught, and well understood by the students, they
will be able to solve lots of problems with railways or highways,
and even be able to time the final of the Olympic 100 meters.
The formula you give is simply magnificent...
BUT...
But then Richard Hachel arrives once again, and his unfortunate habit
of behaving like a genius of humanity, and he will say: "You are doing
Newtonian physics, guys, very beautiful Newtonian physics, and, in
this case, let yourself be taught by Maciej, who also does excellent
Nestonian physics. Forget relativistic physics."

Leave Walnut-brain Wozzie out of your meanderings, please.

Post by Richard Hachel
In truth, if this equation keeps a certain reality for proper times
(tau), it becomes unusable for improper times, unless, like Hachel,
we write Vo, and no longer v, in relativistic equations.

Nope.

Post by Richard Hachel
Why?
Anisochrony, guys, ANISOCHRONY!!!

Nope. You're conflating motion as measured by a moving observer
relative to the "stationary observer. The correct term for that
is v', or u' since it's different from the relative velocity
between the moving observer and the stationary one, not Vo.

u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2) [A]

Post by Richard Hachel
In Hachelian relativity (the best theoretician of RR since Poincaré,
Einstein and Minkowski thrown in the trash,

Breath, blow ...

Post by Richard Hachel
although I am not anti-Germanic),

Some might call you that :-))

Post by Richard Hachel
we cannot add, subtract, count, times with watches even intertial,
stationary between them, if they are placed in different places.
This results not in a TRUE measurement, but in an OBSERVABLE
measurement.
The only true measurement can only be made by a single watch (tau).

You fail to understand two things: (1) watches in different places
at rest with respect to each other can be synchronized, and I have
demonstrated how to do it elsewhere (it's called Einstein synchron-
ization). (2) A means of recording the reading of the remote watch
is implicit in the measurement. It may be a second observer at the
second watch, or some recording device.

And v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1) is, therefore, ALWAYS true (in SR).

Post by Richard Hachel
If this is done with the watch of the mobile

There is no mobile in the above equation, only in Equation [A].

Post by Richard Hachel
[Conflation of stationary (Newtonian) observers with mobile
observers deleted].
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Nope. Only the relativistic velocity composition equation is
necessary (Equation [A]), which comes directly from the LTEs:

dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
dt' = gamma(dt - vdx/c^2)

dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v)/(1 - vdx/dt/c^2)

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
It is realized universally every day.
This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in this
telescope, I perceive them because, precisely, it is about instantaneous
transmission of information.

Doesn't happen. Ever. There's always time delay due to speed of light.
Telescopes look into the past of what they see. And the moon you see is
more than a second old. Even the horse is older.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is what we call direct-live.

I beg you to stop being an idiot and writing nonsense.

This forum is already rotten with guys who come to talk to us about
Ukraine, Trump, and other off-topic stuff in relativity,
if in addition, one of the celestial lights of relativity (me) is
criticized badly, we will not get out of it.

I repeat:
"This horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in this
telescope, are given to me live, without an intermediary, and by
instantaneous transfer of information".

The answers I get, which are like: "the speed of light means that we
cannot observe things instantly, and even some stars may be dead today"
are particularly stupid.

They show the collective decay of current physics.

One day, we will laugh at such answers because science will progress.

But today, I am saddened by it.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
It is realized universally every day.
This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in this
telescope, I perceive them because, precisely, it is about

instantaneous

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
transmission of information.

Doesn't happen. Ever. There's always time delay due to speed of

light.

Post by gharnagel
Telescopes look into the past of what they see. And the moon you see

is

Post by gharnagel
more than a second old. Even the horse is older.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is what we call direct-live.

I beg you to stop being an idiot and writing nonsense.

You seem to be projecting, Richard.

Post by Richard Hachel
This forum is already rotten with guys who come to talk to us about
Ukraine, Trump, and other off-topic stuff in relativity,
if in addition, one of the celestial lights of relativity (me) is
criticized badly, we will not get out of it.
"This horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in this
telescope, are given to me live, without an intermediary, and by
instantaneous transfer of information".
The answers I get, which are like: "the speed of light means that we
cannot observe things instantly, and even some stars may be dead today"
are particularly stupid.
They show the collective decay of current physics.

Nope. "direct-live" represents a specific decay of this group.

Post by Richard Hachel
One day, we will laugh at such answers because science will progress.
But today, I am saddened by it.
R.H.

Be saddened all you want, but it will degrade science until you bring
your ideas in congruency with reality.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2) [A]

Post by Richard Hachel
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Nope. Only the relativistic velocity composition equation is
dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
dt' = gamma(dt - vdx/c^2)
dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v)/(1 - vdx/dt/c^2)

Absolutely, but...

And y? And z?

But that's not what I'm talking about!
I'm talking about the notion of universal anisochrony, and the fact that,
very strangely, if we observe transverse motions,
we can never measure a speed greater than c.
But that in the longitudinal direction, and everything proves it, both
theory and experiment, we can observe things live.
There is a geometry of space-time that is real, and lots of others
(including Minkowski's that are not).
You give me the equation for adding longitudinal relativistic speeds as if
I didn't know it, are you kidding?
No, only do I know it, but I can give it to you in general observable
form, in general real form or in vector form.
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:2>

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2) [A]
Nope. Only the relativistic velocity composition equation is
dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
dt' = gamma(dt - vdx/c^2)
dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v)/(1 - vdx/dt/c^2)

Absolutely, but...
And y? And z?

Surely you know that y' = y and z' = z since the motion is solely
along x. I can only conclude, therefore, that you are obfuscating
in the grand manner of Walnut-brain Wozzie.

Post by Richard Hachel
But that's not what I'm talking about!
I'm talking about the notion of universal anisochrony, and the fact
that, very strangely, if we observe transverse motions,
we can never measure a speed greater than c.

So?

Post by Richard Hachel
But that in the longitudinal direction, and everything proves it, both
theory and experiment, we can observe things live.

Not live. Light transit time delayed. Stop saying live. You cheapen
yourself by lying.

Post by Richard Hachel
There is a geometry of space-time that is real, and lots of others
(including Minkowski's that are not).

Is there a "real" geometry of spacetime? Geometry is a human concept.

Post by Richard Hachel
You give me the equation for adding longitudinal relativistic speeds as
if I didn't know it, are you kidding?

You don't act like you know it. Not deep down in your innards where it
counts.

Post by Richard Hachel
No, only do I know it, but I can give it to you in general observable
form, in general real form or in vector form.

All I've seen is childish attempts to invent fantasies.

Post by Richard Hachel
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
R.H.

Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two
bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines. Doing so is just being a
stuffed
shirt. And it's wrong anyway: "cosu.U" means what? What is u.U? Do
you mean
cos(u.U), which makes no sense. Cosines and sines are dimensionless.
You need
some formal education in correct mathematical expression.

You always try to run before you can walk.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2) [A]
Nope. Only the relativistic velocity composition equation is
dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
dt' = gamma(dt - vdx/c^2)
dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v)/(1 - vdx/dt/c^2)

Absolutely, but...
And y? And z?

Surely you know that y' = y and z' = z since the motion is solely
along x. I can only conclude, therefore, that you are obfuscating
in the grand manner of Walnut-brain Wozzie.

Post by Richard Hachel
But that's not what I'm talking about!
I'm talking about the notion of universal anisochrony, and the fact
that, very strangely, if we observe transverse motions,
we can never measure a speed greater than c.

So?

Post by Richard Hachel
But that in the longitudinal direction, and everything proves it, both
theory and experiment, we can observe things live.

Not live. Light transit time delayed. Stop saying live. You cheapen
yourself by lying.

Post by Richard Hachel
There is a geometry of space-time that is real, and lots of others
(including Minkowski's that are not).

Is there a "real" geometry of spacetime? Geometry is a human concept.

Post by Richard Hachel
You give me the equation for adding longitudinal relativistic speeds as
if I didn't know it, are you kidding?

You don't act like you know it. Not deep down in your innards where it
counts.

Post by Richard Hachel
No, only do I know it, but I can give it to you in general observable
form, in general real form or in vector form.

All I've seen is childish attempts to invent fantasies.

Post by Richard Hachel
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
R.H.

Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two
bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines. Doing so is just being a
stuffed
shirt. And it's wrong anyway: "cosu.U" means what? What is u.U? Do
you mean
cos(u.U), which makes no sense. Cosines and sines are dimensionless. You
need
some formal education in correct mathematical expression.
You always try to run before you can walk.

Heh, "all you've seen".

That's not scientific.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
What is u.U?
You always try to run before you can walk.

:))

Not u.U

But cosµ.U and sinµ.U

µ is a greek letter denoting an angle.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
What is u.U?
You always try to run before you can walk.

:))
Not u.U
But cosµ.U and sinµ.U
µ is a greek letter denoting an angle.
R.H.

Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
What is u.U?
You always try to run before you can walk.

:))
Not u.U
But cosµ.U and sinµ.U
µ is a greek letter denoting an angle.
R.H.

Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.

? ? ?

R.H.

[Bunnie Belogubov]

Post by gharnagel
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.

? ? ?

you dont undrestand. Here's a paper, making it obvious.

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗨𝗦_𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆_𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗱_𝘂𝘀_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75%74e.com/%76%69%64eo/p3ZQXmwfjKo5

they bombed the energy pipeline at the bottom of the sea, openly,
declaring it openly at all level of clearance, including The Majestic
Clearance level, to be undrestood. Only the fools would be not able to
undrestand.

𝘽𝘼𝙇𝙏𝙊𝙋𝙎22_(𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙘_𝙊𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨_2022)
These countries will exercise a myriad of capabilities, demonstrating the
inherent flexibility of maritime forces. Exercise scenarios include
amphibious, gunnery, anti-submarine, air defense, and mine clearance
operations, as well as 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙖𝙡, unmanned underwater
and surface vehicle exercises, and medical responses.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/baltops-2023-exercise-kicks-off-in-the-baltic-sea/
Participating nations include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and
the United States.

go tell your gov I sent you to tell that.

[gharnagel]

Post by gharnagel
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.

? ? ?
R.H.

Sorry, I thought I was being obvious.

When you write cosu.U, it can be taken either as
cos(u.U) or cos(u)U. Writing as Ucosu removes
the ambiguity, mostly, but it's probably best to
use parentheses. Remember PEMDAS: evaluate
what's inside parentheses first, then exponents,
then multiplication, division, addition then
subtraction. The mnemonic is Please Excuse My
Dear Aunt Sally.

[Python]

Post by gharnagel
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.

? ? ?

Cranks likes obfuscation. You are crank. You loves obfuscation.

cosu.U is ambiguous between cos(u.U) and (cos u).U

U.cosu has no ambiguity

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by gharnagel
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.

? ? ?

Cranks likes obfuscation. You are crank. You loves obfuscation.
cosu.U is ambiguous between cos(u.U) and (cos u).U
U.cosu has no ambiguity

Et si tu arrêtais de dire n'importe quoi?

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by gharnagel
Then you should write it U.cosu, not cosu.U.

? ? ?

Cranks likes obfuscation. You are crank. You loves obfuscation.
cosu.U is ambiguous between cos(u.U) and (cos u).U
U.cosu has no ambiguity

Et si tu arrêtais de dire n'importe quoi?

This is quite basic stuff. Known to any professor or student.

[Python]

...

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
R.H.

Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two
bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines.  Doing so is just being a
stuffed shirt.

I didn't know the expression "stuffed shirt", thanks! You are absolutely
right!

"a smug, conceited, and usually pompous person" (Merriam-Webster
dictionnary)

This applies perfectly to doctor "Hachel" Lengrand. He is very bad in
basic math, you know (even failing to solve 2 variable linear equations
systems on fr.sci.math on a regular basis). So he is very proud of
himself when adding trigonometric functions in situation where there
are clearly useless. As you wrote there is always a way to align
x-axis when dealing two bodies: he is doing the same when he
pontificates about "apparent speeds" formulas. Formulas that he
is unable to properly derive :

https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python
...

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
R.H.

Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two
bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines.  Doing so is just being a
stuffed shirt.

I didn't know the expression "stuffed shirt", thanks! You are absolutely
right!
  "a smug, conceited, and usually pompous person" (Merriam-Webster
dictionnary)
This applies perfectly to doctor "Hachel" Lengrand. He is very bad in
basic math,

And speaking of basic math, it's always
good to remind that your idiot guru had
to announce it false, as it didn't want
to fit his moronic postulates.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
...

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
R.H.

Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two
bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines.  Doing so is just being a
stuffed shirt.

I didn't know the expression "stuffed shirt", thanks! You are absolutely
right!
   "a smug, conceited, and usually pompous person" (Merriam-Webster
dictionnary)
This applies perfectly to doctor "Hachel" Lengrand. He is very bad in
basic math,

And speaking of basic math, it's always
good to remind that  your idiot guru had
to announce it false, as it didn't want
to fit his moronic postulates.

https://editions.flammarion.com/entartons-entartons-les-pompeux-cornichons/9782080685469

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
"apparent speed" is tenuous. To me, it means an optical illusion, which
has no place in solving relativity problems. Velocity is the correct
term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where t2 and t1 are
read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and x1, respectively,
as the object whose velocity is meing measured passes those points.

Two important things to answer.
First, you say that for you, the longitudinal Doppler effect is only an
illusion. I understand what you are saying, although I consider it false.
For me, I do not have this usual vision, and I use the concept "think
different" so dear to relativistic physicists, but who do not apply it,
leaving me alone to think differently, which is a shame.
For physicists, there "would be" something like a transverse effect (which
is not only transverse since it concerns all directions and only affects
speed); an effect to which would be added a false effect, a decoy effect,
which we would call the longitudinal Doppler effect.
I do not find this very serious, even if it suits them.
For me, everything is live-live, and the two effects are cumulative
live-live.
The terms must be as precise as possible so that things are as well
understood and as well taught as possible, I will rather use the terms of
internal Doppler effect which shows that it is not a traditional Doppler
effect, neither transverse nor longitudinal.
To this internal Doppler effect (endowed with the gamma factor), is added
an effect just as real, but externally this time, the external (or
longitudinal) Doppler effect.
For me, both effects are real.
For me, Römer was wrong in proposing (the trap was fatal, we should not
blame him) a LONGITUDINAL speed of light for the anomalies that he noted.
He did not realize that he was constantly seeing Jupiter live (like the
whole universe) but that by approaching or moving away from the body, he
modified (to the first longitudinal degree) its universal anisochrony.
I implore you to understand the difference between "observable speed of
light limited to c" and "spatial anisochrony with instantaneous transfer
of visual information".

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
"apparent speed" is tenuous. To me, it means an optical illusion, which
has no place in solving relativity problems. Velocity is the correct
term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where t2 and t1 are
read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and x1, respectively,
as the object whose velocity is meing measured passes those points.

This is a magnificent definition, and its simplicity and truth deserve to
be taught in all high schools in the world.
I'm not kidding.
Now once this is taught, and well understood by the students,
they will be able to solve lots of problems with railways or highways, and
even be able to time the final of the Olympic 100 meters.
The formula you give is simply magnificent...
BUT...
But then Richard Hachel arrives once again, and his unfortunate habit of
behaving like a genius of humanity, and he will say: "You are doing
Newtonian physics, guys, very beautiful Newtonian physics, and, in this
case, let yourself be taught by Maciej, who also does excellent Nestonian
physics. Forget relativistic physics."

In truth, if this equation keeps a certain reality for proper times (tau),
it becomes unusable for improper times, unless, like Hachel, we write Vo,
and no longer v, in relativistic equations.

Why?

Anisochrony, guys, ANISOCHRONY!!!

In Hachelian relativity (the best theoretician of RR since Poincaré,
Einstein and Minkowski thrown in the trash, although I am not
anti-Germanic), we cannot add, subtract, count, times with watches even
intertial, stationary between them, if they are placed in different
places. This results not in a TRUE measurement, but in an OBSERVABLE
measurement.
The only true measurement can only be made by a single watch (tau).
I keep begging everyone to understand that TWO different watches spatially
separated (universal anisochrony) distort the measurement. When you do:
v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1) it is both very true and very false.
If this is done with the watch of the mobile (which cannot desynchronize
with itself), we therefore have, in Hachel notation:
Vr=(x2-x1)/(Tr2-Tr1)
We have here the true speed, and it will give the true quantity of
movement, p=m.Vr and the true energy of the body E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

But if we use the time measured by two different watches (be careful, even
if the path was circular, the watch that measures placed at the edge of
the circuit, it is TWO watches) then we end up with anisochronous murder.
We have Vo=(x2-x1)/(To2-To1) but the observable times being biased by the
anisochrony between the two watches, we have an observable measurement
which is a decoy and which is not the reality of things.
There is a constant difference between the real speeds and the observable
speeds.
Example, Vr=(4/3)c ----> Vo=0.8c

As a relativistic reminder:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

R.H.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

1>

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.

It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan

What, your sockpuppets tire out?


According to Maxwell the field's speed is actually a bit
greater than 3.06 x 10^8 m/s, ....

Not so much tachyonic though as according to "gravity's speed"
coming down or braking from the standing electrical field wave.

"... didn't have relativity in order ...", that's rich.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

1>

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
I laughed.
R.H.

Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.

It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
Jan

What, your sockpuppets tire out?
According to Maxwell the field's speed is actually a bit
greater than 3.06 x 10^8 m/s, ....
Not so much tachyonic though as according to "gravity's speed"
coming down or braking from the standing electrical field wave.
"... didn't have relativity in order ...", that's rich.

Article the other day, "astonishing new laser-and-thorium setup
reduces the cloud of electron-physics and enables an entirely
new configuration of experiment, that amazingly both refines
and reduces 'what we all thought' as physical constants".

And it's like, wow, the past 30 or 40 years of CODATA doing that
on a continuous basis giving out that there are running constants
has really found a new niche, this new laser-and-thorium setup
is a really great piece of old-wrapped-as-new, or even maybe better,
a chance to unveil collective ignorance. Well, maybe that's not
better, no-one likes to think they were fooled.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson
According to Maxwell the field's speed is actually a bit
greater than 3.06 x 10^8 m/s, ....
Not so much tachyonic though as according to "gravity's speed"
coming down or braking from the standing electrical field wave.
"... didn't have relativity in order ...", that's rich.

Article the other day, "astonishing new laser-and-thorium setup
reduces the cloud of electron-physics and enables an entirely
new configuration of experiment, that amazingly both refines
and reduces 'what we all thought' as physical constants".

[snip more blahblahblah]
You really should give direct references.
<https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.013201>
or the press release with it
<https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/nuclear-spectroscopy-breakthrough-could-rewrite-fundamental-constants-of-nature>

Summary:
They succeeded in exiting a isomeric resonance in the ^{229}Th nucleus
at about 8 eV, with a lifetime of about 600 second. (so in the far UV,
using a fluorite crystal that is still transparent at this wavelength)

This may be used to create a still more accurate frequency standard,
hence a clock. (eventually)

Nothing very 'amazing' or 'astonishing' about it,
just another decade of precision gained,
after a decade of hard experimental work,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson
According to Maxwell the field's speed is actually a bit
greater than 3.06 x 10^8 m/s, ....
Not so much tachyonic though as according to "gravity's speed"
coming down or braking from the standing electrical field wave.
"... didn't have relativity in order ...", that's rich.

Article the other day, "astonishing new laser-and-thorium setup
reduces the cloud of electron-physics and enables an entirely
new configuration of experiment, that amazingly both refines
and reduces 'what we all thought' as physical constants".

[snip more blahblahblah]
You really should give direct references.
<https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.013201>
or the press release with it
<https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/nuclear-spectroscopy-breakthrough-could-rewrite-fundamental-constants-of-nature>
They succeeded in exiting a isomeric resonance in the ^{229}Th nucleus
at about 8 eV, with a lifetime of about 600 second. (so in the far UV,
using a fluorite crystal that is still transparent at this wavelength)
This may be used to create a still more accurate frequency standard,
hence a clock. (eventually)
Nothing very 'amazing' or 'astonishing' about it,
just another decade of precision gained,
after a decade of hard experimental work,

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson
According to Maxwell the field's speed is actually a bit
greater than 3.06 x 10^8 m/s, ....
Not so much tachyonic though as according to "gravity's speed"
coming down or braking from the standing electrical field wave.
"... didn't have relativity in order ...", that's rich.

Article the other day, "astonishing new laser-and-thorium setup
reduces the cloud of electron-physics and enables an entirely
new configuration of experiment, that amazingly both refines
and reduces 'what we all thought' as physical constants".

[snip more blahblahblah]
You really should give direct references.
<https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.013201>
or the press release with it
<https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/nuclear-spectroscopy-breakthrough-could-rewrite-fundamental-constants-of-nature>
They succeeded in exiting a isomeric resonance in the ^{229}Th nucleus
at about 8 eV, with a lifetime of about 600 second. (so in the far UV,
using a fluorite crystal that is still transparent at this wavelength)
This may be used to create a still more accurate frequency standard,
hence a clock. (eventually)
Nothing very 'amazing' or 'astonishing' about it,
just another decade of precision gained,
after a decade of hard experimental work,

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

That's among reasons why the, "re-ordering Relativity", bit,
is so rich, so, verdant, ripe, pungent, a rich, rich humus,
which needs a proper apologetics and somebody to explain
how all science still fits all of data when, for example,
2MASS and JWST and even Pioneer have definitely seven-sigma'd
Newton and Einstein put together, while g2 has about log-linear'ed
itself sideways.

Yeah, yeah, I know, "fit the data", ....

[JanPB]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations
given to you.

I laughed.

Yes, that's exactly how it works.

--
Jan

[Neville Kalmár]

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
That's what counter-intuitiveness is.
And it can block 120 years of theoretical physics as long as we don't
believe in it. R.H.

Just give it up, it's just not something you can do. Just like I don't
run around pretending I can play Godowski's Chopin transcriptions. I
just don't do it. Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot
understand the explanations given to you.

true indeed. That's why the fucking west are not undrestanding anything in
the special military operation in Ukrane. The fucking west are all inbreed
nazis, no exception. They properly shit on Poland, Hungary and all the
East, considered conquered territories ready to be plundered. Just look at
the salaries of the Polish workers in EU, 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 2022. Clearly suggests the
west are the worst fucking nazis on the face of the earth. The hitler
nazis were better, they had a discipline.

𝗙𝗕𝗜_𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗱𝘀_𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁_𝗥𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿’𝘀_𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲
The RT contributor is reportedly being investigated as a ‘foreign agent’
https://www.r%74.com/news/602301-scott-ritter-fbi-raid/

Scott Ritter could consider himself lucky? In the UK they murdered weapons
inspectors who were going to state that there were no WMD's in Iraq and
there was no reason to invade.

Alert!! Scott Ritter's life is in serious Danger!! . Could be the next
"Gonzalo Lira" but, AT HOME !!. 😩

They will only make true Patriots like Mr Ritter stronger against the vile
zionazism filth.

Is it not clear by now that the US has all along been concealing her
fascist GESTAPO nature?

US today is like Nazi Germany

Could RT be just a tad more professional and blur his license plate and
home number? He IS an RT contributer, and on the Ukrainian kill list, ffs.

USA is a scary place to live these days, it is like Nazi Germany 1934.

From Land of the Free to Land of the Fries to Lord of the Flies

Absolutely expected. He attacked Israel too much and too vehemently that
surprised me. Not for FBI raid but he should know better.

Why is the law not enforced on the Israeli agents in Congress and Senate??
Why ? Easy. AIPAC, WJC, WALL STREET, HOLLYWOOD, PENTAGUN, NSA, CIA which
they duly control 100%..... And then most of your US Politicians are in
EPSTEIN's black book..

The FBI has turned into something like the Brown Shirts were for Hitler

'When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being
ruled by criminals". --Edward Snowden

never underestimate the power of lies of these stupid 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙨 satanists
motherfuckers. What keeps them together is the lying and the crime. They
even pretend they are "Aryans" in the collective_west.