Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
>>
>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
>>
>> Did you personally make this video?
>
> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)

Je déteste Ravel.

LOL.

R.H.

Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
>>
>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
>>
>> Did you personally make this video?
>
> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)

I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not understand
the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom which no one ever
talks about but which is essential to fully understanding the Langevin
paradox.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>

R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo :<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp>

Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
>> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
>>>
>>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
>>>
>>> Did you personally make this video?
>>
>> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
>
> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not understand
> the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom which no one
> ever talks about but which is essential to fully understanding the
> Langevin paradox.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>
> R.H.

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

Le 29/12/2023 à 14:36, Python a écrit :
> Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
>>> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
>>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
>>>>
>>>> Did you personally make this video?
>>>
>>> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
>>
>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not understand
>> the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom which no one
>> ever talks about but which is essential to fully understanding the
>> Langevin paradox.
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>>
>> R.H.
>
>
> https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp

http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp

Le jour où tu m'en remontreras, il est pas encore venu. LOL.

Je suis le meilleur théoricien de la cinématique relativiste, et
j'attends toujours qu'on vienne m'expliquer où sont mes erreurs.

A côté, t'euh qu'un guignol !

Un bouffon !

R.H.

Le 29/12/2023 à 14:43, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 29/12/2023 à 14:36, Python a écrit :
>> Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
>>>> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
>>>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you personally make this video?
>>>>
>>>> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
>>>
>>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
>>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
>>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
>>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>
>>
>> https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
>
> http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp
>
> http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp
>
> Le jour où tu m'en remontreras, il est pas encore venu. LOL.
> Je suis le meilleur théoricien de la cinématique relativiste, et
> j'attends toujours qu'on vienne m'expliquer où sont mes erreurs.
> A côté, t'euh qu'un guignol !
> Un bouffon !
> R.H.

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

On Friday 29 December 2023 at 14:45:19 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Le 29/12/2023 à 14:43, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> > Le 29/12/2023 à 14:36, Python a écrit :
> >> Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> >>> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
> >>>> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
> >>>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Did you personally make this video?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
> >>>
> >>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
> >>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
> >>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
> >>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
> >>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
> >>>
> >>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >>>
> >>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> >>>
> >>> R.H.
> >>
> >>
> >> https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
> >
> > http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp
> >
> > http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp
> >
> > Le jour où tu m'en remontreras, il est pas encore venu. LOL.
> > Je suis le meilleur théoricien de la cinématique relativiste, et
> > j'attends toujours qu'on vienne m'expliquer où sont mes erreurs.
> > A côté, t'euh qu'un guignol !
> > Un bouffon !
> > R.H.
> https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?

On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:

> Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
>>> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
>>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
>>>>
>>>> Did you personally make this video?
>>>
>>> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
>>
>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>>
>> R.H.
>
> https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
>

That's a good article, well worth reading. Do you have any idea where
Mr Hachel obtained his "doctorate" (not in Medicine, but in something
relevant to science)?

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:

>>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
>>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
>>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
>>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>>>
>>> R.H.

> That's a good article, well worth reading.

Sure.

R.H.

Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
>
>> Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
>>>> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
>>>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you personally make this video?
>>>>
>>>> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
>>>
>>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
>>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
>>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
>>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>
>> https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
>
> That's a good article, well worth reading. Do you have any idea where Mr
> Hachel obtained his "doctorate" (not in Medicine, but in something
> relevant to science)?

He didn't.

On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 4:58:30 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
> > Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
> >> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
> >>
> >>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
> >>
> >> Did you personally make this video?
> >
> > Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
> Je déteste Ravel.
>
> LOL.
>
> R.H.

I find it quite soothing.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
>
>>>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
>>>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
>>>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
>>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
>>>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
>>>>
>>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>>>
>>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>>>>
>>>> R.H.
>
>> That's a good article, well worth reading.
>
> Sure.
>
> R.H.

So worth reading that you deliberately removed the link to the article:

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

Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies,
incompetence and hypocrisy.

People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.

On Friday 29 December 2023 at 20:33:21 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> > Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> >> On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
> >
> >>>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
> >>>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
> >>>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
> >>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
> >>>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data..Media:1>
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data..Media:2>
> >>>>
> >>>> R.H.
> >
> >> That's a good article, well worth reading.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > R.H.
> So worth reading that you deliberately removed the link to the article:

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?
Do you already know that a function has, by
definition, "for any element of the domain" clause?

Idiotic crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday 29 December 2023 at 20:33:21 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>> Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>>> On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
>>>
>>>>>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
>>>>>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
>>>>>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
>>>>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
>>>>>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R.H.
>>>
>>>> That's a good article, well worth reading.
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>> So worth reading that you deliberately removed the link to the article:
>
>
> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
> definition 9 and learnt what a function is?
> Do you already know that a function has, by
> definition, "for any element of the domain" clause?

Still fighting with basic algebra Woz? Sad...

Op 29/12/2023 om 14:36 schreef Python:
> Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
>>> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
>>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
>>>>
>>>> Did you personally make this video?
>>>
>>> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
>>
>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>>
>> R.H.
>
> https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

I must admit I can't follow your argument throughout.

Generally what you call "apparent" quantities are poorly described in
'authoritative' SRT literature, yet they'd deserve much more attention.
My own formulation is:
always distinguish between
"measuring" results (in agreement with Lorentz transform) and
"watching/seeing/observational" results (light signals reaching
observer; Doppler distortions...).

As for the (in?)famous "space-zoom" you seem to reject, dr Hachel may
formulate it somewhat poorly, but the effect is a true result of
"observational" description of SRT/TP.
My own approach, which seems to me the one to follow, is to be found here:

"https://wugi.be/paratwin.htm#Relasee,%20TP-wise."
with this animation:
https://wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvTrav.gif
and a bit lower in the text:
https://wugi.be/animgif/TwinSee_ObsvTrav.gif
Traveltwins "observation" during his own return event shown in magenta.

Notice that in traveltwin's outbound trip the hometwin seems to recede
more slowly, and in the homebound trip to approach more rapidly. Since
both trips take the same (half) time, this means that hometwin is seen
going less far in the first half, and coming back from farther away in
the second half. So, some kind of "space-zoom" must have happened at
traveltwin's very return event! Rememember that traveltwin swaps between
two different inertial states at this event. Each state represents a
different physical state of traveltwin, making him perceive *different
distances* for the same (hometwin's) event!

More on this yet to watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WouPS_umfks&list=PL5xDSSE1qfb6zyVKJbe8POgj-8ijmh5o0&index=8
and
https://wugi.be/srtinterac.html
with eg:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aoacey9t1v?lang=nl
(choose option TP4 to activate; activate parameter s)

--
guido wugi

On Friday 29 December 2023 at 21:22:22 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Idiotic crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday 29 December 2023 at 20:33:21 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> >>> Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> >>>> On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
> >>>
> >>>>>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
> >>>>>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
> >>>>>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
> >>>>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
> >>>>>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> R.H.
> >>>
> >>>> That's a good article, well worth reading.
> >>>
> >>> Sure.
> >>>
> >>> R.H.
> >> So worth reading that you deliberately removed the link to the article:
> >
> >
> > Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> > and trying again to pretend he knows something.
> > Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
> > definition 9 and learnt what a function is?
> > Do you already know that a function has, by
> > definition, "for any element of the domain" clause?
> Still fighting with basic algebra Woz? Sad...

Said an idiot believing that function doesn't have
"for any element of the domain" clause.

On Friday 29 December 2023 at 23:59:14 UTC+1, wugi wrote:
> Op 29/12/2023 om 14:36 schreef Python:
> > Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> >> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
> >>> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
> >>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you personally make this video?
> >>>
> >>> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
> >>
> >> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
> >> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
> >> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
> >> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
> >> understanding the Langevin paradox.
> >>
> >> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >>
> >> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> >>
> >> R.H.
> >
> > https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
> I must admit I can't follow your argument throughout.
>
> Generally what you call "apparent" quantities are poorly described in
> 'authoritative' SRT literature, yet they'd deserve much more attention.
> My own formulation is:
> always distinguish between
> "measuring" results (in agreement with Lorentz transform) and
> "watching/seeing/observational" results (light signals reaching
> observer; Doppler distortions...).
>
> As for the (in?)famous "space-zoom" you seem to reject, dr Hachel may
> formulate it somewhat poorly, but the effect is a true result of
> "observational" description of SRT/TP.
> My own approach, which seems to me the one to follow, is to be found here:
>
> "https://wugi.be/paratwin.htm#Relasee,%20TP-wise."
> with this animation:
> https://wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvTrav.gif
> and a bit lower in the text:
> https://wugi.be/animgif/TwinSee_ObsvTrav.gif
> Traveltwins "observation" during his own return event shown in magenta.
>
> Notice that in traveltwin's outbound trip the hometwin seems to recede
> more slowly, and in the homebound trip to approach more rapidly. Since
> both trips take the same (half) time, this means that hometwin is seen

Notice, that both traveltwin and hometwin are nothing
but your gedanken delusions, and in the meantime in
the real world- fobidden by the idiots like you "improper"
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Le 29/12/2023 à 20:33, Python a écrit :

> Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies,
> incompetence and hypocrisy.
>
> People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.

LOL.
People especially notice that you are a puppet, a buffoon.

R.H.

On 2023-12-30 10:02:56 +0000, "Doctor" Richard Hachel said:

> Le 29/12/2023 à 20:33, Python a écrit :
>
>> Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies,
>> incompetence and hypocrisy.
>>
>> People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.
>
> LOL.
> People especially notice that you are a puppet, a buffoon.

We all know who is the buffoon here, and it isn't Python.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 11:06:51 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> > People especially notice that you are a puppet, a buffoon.
> We all know who is the buffoon here, and it isn't Python.

Well, you may know some buffoons here, but obviously not
all of them.

Le 30/12/2023 à 11:06, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-12-30 10:02:56 +0000, "Doctor" Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Le 29/12/2023 à 20:33, Python a écrit :
>>
>>> Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies,
>>> incompetence and hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.
>>
>> LOL.
>> People especially notice that you are a puppet, a buffoon.
>
> We all know who is the buffoon here, and it isn't Python.

LOL.

R.H.

Le 29/12/2023 à 23:59, wugi a écrit :

> Notice that in traveltwin's outbound trip the hometwin seems to recede
> more slowly, and in the homebound trip to approach more rapidly. Since
> both trips take the same (half) time, this means that hometwin is seen
> going less far in the first half, and coming back from farther away in
> the second half. So, some kind of "space-zoom" must have happened at
> traveltwin's very return event! Rememember that traveltwin swaps between
> two different inertial states at this event. Each state represents a
> different physical state of traveltwin, making him perceive *different
> distances* for the same (hometwin's) event!

Ce qu'il fait bien comprendre, c'est que la théorie de la relativité
n'est pas une pure invention imaginée par Henri Poincaré
et Hendrik Lorentz.

Ces gens là n'étaient pas des bandits, des voyous, des crétins.

Ils avaient fort bien compris que quelque chose clochait.

Le plus grand mathématicien de son époque, Henri Poincaré va alors
découvrir la formule d'équivalence masse-énergie E=mc²,
et donner à son ami Lorentz, les transformations correctes que Lorentz
cherchait depuis des années.

Tout cela sera plagié par Albert Einstein (copiste au bureau des brevets
de Berne : LOL).

Ce qu'il manquait, à Henri Poincaré, c'était la dernière pointe
(comme on dit aux échecs). Il n'a pas eu le dernier coup de génie
(Docteur Hachel copyrights) de visualiser l'effet zoom spatial.

Seul moi a eu le coup de génie de décoder le problème à la
perfection.

Le reste, n'est que haine, jalousie, conneries (Jean-Pierre Messager
copyriths) qui voue au docteur Hachel, une haine maladive.

Personne n'est jamais parvenu à expliquer le paradoxe de Langevin mieux
que moi.

Et tout est là.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp
http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp

La clé du problème est l'effet zoom spatial :
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

C'est d'une beauté et d'une logique infinie.

Merci de votre écoute.

R.H.

Am 28.12.2023 um 13:18 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
....
>> Sure.
>>
>> But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
>> has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
>>
>> That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
>>
>> You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
>>
>> Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
>> observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.
>>
>>
>>> If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does
>>> not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at
>>> relativistic speed.
>>
>> If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
>> high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
>>
>> This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
>> are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
>>
>> But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
>>
>> (more likely: that disk will break)
>>
>>
>>> The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards.
>>>
>>> This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
>>> radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this
>>> case.
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
>> to say.
>
> Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.

It's total nonsense to declare a rotating FoR as equivalent to an
inertial FoR.

And it would be realy insane to assume, that an observer on a rotating
disk rotating with tangential velocity in the realm of SRT (like say 0.5
c) would not notice this rotation.

Therefore I have not the faintest idea, what Einstein's/Ehrenfest's
point actually was.

....

TH

Le 31/12/2023 à 08:04, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> It's total nonsense to declare a rotating FoR as equivalent to an
> inertial FoR.
>
> And it would be realy insane to assume, that an observer on a rotating
> disk rotating with tangential velocity in the realm of SRT (like say 0.5
> c) would not notice this rotation.
>
> Therefore I have not the faintest idea, what Einstein's/Ehrenfest's
> point actually was.
>
> ...
>
> TH

It must be said that a disk which does not rotate, and which moves in
Galilean motion must be provided with Poincaré-Lorentz transformations.

On the other hand, if it rotates on itself, otherwise moving in Galilean
motion (for example a disk in a laboratory) the same equations for the two
cases cannot be used.

Poincaré's transformations are very clear, and say even more than we
believe, since they already predict (1905) new notions like the
relativistic spatial zoom effect, or older ones like the aberration of the
position stars at the zenith.

There are no Poincaré transformations relating to rotating frames of
reference and for the moment, we are all content to say stupid things like
"the circumference of a circle will soon become smaller than its radius".

The worst part is that those who advocate this are real idiots, and those
who worship them are even more idiots.

"We must cultivate our garden"
Voltaire.

R.H.

Am 28.12.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 28/12/2023 à 09:01, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>
>> Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.
>
> There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at
> Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
> speed of 0.8c.

I have not the faintest idea how you want to build a rigid disk with
tangential velocity of 0.8 c.

That disk had to be extremely large and had do run insanely fast.

This combinagtion would create tremendous tensions at the rim of the
disk, which will more than sufficiant to break the disk apart. (for all
possible rigid materials)

> These are therefore not, obviously, the same equations that must be
> used. For the disk in translation, it's easy, the Poincaré-Lorentz
> transformations are enough. For the rotating disk, the reflection
> becomes appalling, and a lot of people have thrown in the towel in the
> face of the simple Ehrenfest paradox.

How in the world could someone calculate the relativistic effects of
nonsense.

TH

Le 03/01/2024 à 08:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 28.12.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> Le 28/12/2023 à 09:01, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>
>>> Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.
>>
>> There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at
>> Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
>> speed of 0.8c.
>
>
> I have not the faintest idea how you want to build a rigid disk with
> tangential velocity of 0.8 c.
>
> That disk had to be extremely large and had do run insanely fast.
>
> This combinagtion would create tremendous tensions at the rim of the
> disk, which will more than sufficiant to break the disk apart. (for all
> possible rigid materials)
>
>
>> These are therefore not, obviously, the same equations that must be
>> used. For the disk in translation, it's easy, the Poincaré-Lorentz
>> transformations are enough. For the rotating disk, the reflection
>> becomes appalling, and a lot of people have thrown in the towel in the
>> face of the simple Ehrenfest paradox.
>
> How in the world could someone calculate the relativistic effects of
> nonsense.
>
>
> TH

This is not nonsense.
There can only be one physics in the world.
If we can imagine a hyperrigid disk, why not?
Furthermore, we don't have to go at speeds of 0.8c.
Small relativistic effects can already be measured before.
Finally, let's not forget the planets, which revolve around their sun,
and sometimes even faster than Mercury (we found a large planet rotating
very close and very quickly around its sun).
And there, no need for a “full disk”.

I am convinced that for Mercury, the slight advance of its perihelion is
due to a problem of RR, and not even of RG.

R.H.