Le 01/04/2024 à 21:58, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>> Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>
>>> Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.
>>
>> Can you show me a little fact of it.
>
> Again? I have done it several times, but OK:
>
> It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
> in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.
>
> Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
> in the Large Hadron Collider is 6927⋅c.
>
> Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.
>
>>
>> A very small.
>>
>> And I am silent, gentlemen.
>>
>> Even the Nobel Prize winner Alain Aspect says that I am right about the
>> principle of non-locality,
>
> Can you please explain how non-locality affects the predictions of SR?
> Does it make any of the following confirmations of SR invalid?
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>
>> the greatest mathematician in the world,
>> Henri Poincaré, says that I am right when I write "There will therefore
>> exist an impenetrable limit speed which will extend to all particles,
>> bodies and laws of the universe.
>
> Quite.
> And we know that the impenetrable limit speed is c.
>
> So why do you claim that the speed of protons can be 6927⋅c?
>
>> I simply combine the two.
>
> So if you combine non-locality and the principle that c is
> an impenetrable limit speed, you find that the speed of
> protons can be 6927⋅c ?
>
>> Scientists can't.
>> Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
>> who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?
>
> Your falsified theory is obviously much better than
> the theory that's never falsified.
> Right? :-D

Je ne prends pas la peine de répondre.

Ca n'en vaut malheureusement pas la peine.

R.H.

Le 01/04/2024 à 21:59, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> measure any speed.
>
> But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
> angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
> the apparent transverse velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

But NO!

Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)

If v=c and cosµ=0 (tranversal move), Vapp=c.

Paul, Paul, je te supplie d'arrêter de dire n'importe quoi.

Cela tourne au ridicule.

R.H.

Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
> least as taught today, was incorrect.

It is rubbish.

> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which
> is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply
> said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same
> thing.

No, it is not incorrect. It is rubbish. For light speed varies with the
speed of the emitter, as shown by the correct understanding of the MMI
expt results on one hand; and there is violation of inertia with the
Lorenz force not having equal and opposite reaction. With inertia
violated, with my railgun experiments, the essential basis for Eisntein's
1905 paper gets outed.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ

***

Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near
space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s

and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia
can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting
that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s

*****

Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ

Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ

Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ

Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ

Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ

Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ

Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ

*******

2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics

****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ

The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ

*****

Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
>> least as taught today, was incorrect.

> It is rubbish.

Banjo Boy. you are *still* dumber than a mud fence... and Richard, you have never proven anything is wrong with relativity... nor has anyone else in the last 120 years or so...

On 04/01/2024 06:14 PM, palsing wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>
>>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of
>>> relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.
>
>> It is rubbish.
>
> Banjo Boy. you are *still* dumber than a mud fence... and Richard, you
> have never proven anything is wrong with relativity... nor has anyone
> else in the last 120 years or so...

Einstein though sort of walked some things back,
"SR is local and the E-spacial", specifically.

That, and mass-energy equivalency sort of is governed
by GR not SR, and sort of is so about the rotational
and moments, and sort of independent the linear and Galilean.

The wider sky survey, after CMBR and the universe was flat,
and after 2MASS and the reshift was much less pronounced,
and definitely since JWST, has roundly paint-canned what
was the highly-tuned theory of inflationary cosmology.

Also again there's a sort of "Dirac's positronic,
Einstein's white-hole, magnetic micropole, vacuum sea".

So, SR and GR are still pretty great, but GR is in front now.

The "dark matter holding galaxies together" and "dark energy
spacing them apart" really is "the unseen which doesn't say much",
except that Parameterized Post-Newtonian is how the Earth's ephemeris
is modeled, and many modern theories like MOND better fit without
tuning the current, and thusly also historical, contents of
the sky survey.

So, Einstein sort of refined his theories, and into one theory,
to sort of protect himself from his own followers.

It's a continuum mechanics is why, or as Einstein put it,
it's sort of a total field theory of differential inertial-systems.

Le 02/04/2024 à 02:50, Arindam Banerjee a écrit :
> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
>> least as taught today, was incorrect.
>
> It is rubbish.
>
>> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which
>> is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply
>> said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same
>> thing.
>
> No, it is not incorrect. It is rubbish. For light speed varies with the speed
> of the emitter, as shown by the correct understanding of the MMI expt results on
> one hand; and there is violation of inertia with the Lorenz force not having equal
> and opposite reaction. With inertia violated, with my railgun experiments, the
> essential basis for Eisntein's 1905 paper gets outed.

I am surprised that you want to refute things that are so obvious, and
especially by giving false arguments.
It is not possible that the speed of light can be changed by the speed of
the source because the speed of light in a frame of reference is measured
with TWO watches, and the two watches that measure it are in the
receiver's frame of reference .
This de facto makes the speed of the source completely useless to take
into account to produce this speed.
On the other hand, if the speed of the source has no importance on the
speed of the wave, it is important to know that it has an importance on
the wavelength and the energy of the photon.

λ'=λ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosα.Vo/c)
λ'=λ.(1-cosα'.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
λ'=λ.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

hυ'=hυ.(1+cosα.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1-cosα'.Vo/c)
hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Thank you for listening.

R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo: <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=yicmqV-LmSkUGZMrLIlAvr5aftM@jntp>

Le 02/04/2024 à 20:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 02/04/2024 à 02:50, Arindam Banerjee a écrit :
>> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
>>> least as taught today, was incorrect.
>>
>> It is rubbish.
>>
>>> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which
>>> is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply
>>> said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same
>>> thing.
>>
>> No, it is not incorrect. It is rubbish. For light speed varies with the speed
>> of the emitter, as shown by the correct understanding of the MMI expt results on
>> one hand; and there is violation of inertia with the Lorenz force not having equal
>> and opposite reaction. With inertia violated, with my railgun experiments, the
>> essential basis for Eisntein's 1905 paper gets outed.
>
>
> I am surprised that you want to refute things that are so obvious, and
> especially by giving false arguments.

It is obvious from the MM experiment that the speed of light changes with
the speed of the emitter.
I found the bungle made of the analysis of the experiments back in 2005.
Basically, they ignored the fact that the equipment moves along with the
Earth, as it is on the Earth.
That way, the distances travelled by the light in the two directions are
the same, and so there is the null result. One can check out the detailed
paper, will repost if necessary.
That the light speed changes is most obvious with the Doppler effect,
where frequency changes with the velocity of the emitter.

Thus if c(V)=c+V
f = (c+V)/wavelength.
or f = c/wavelength + V/wavelength
or f(rest) + del f = c/wavelength + V/wavelength
which gives
del f = V/wavelength

See, when we have velocity of sound/light/water changing with the velocity
of the emitter, then there is no need to twist up the wavelength which
remains the same (as it has to, no way it can get twisted up, it only
moves past faster or slower with more or less speed of the emitter).

When v is positive, we get higher f, as is evidenced.
When v is negative, we get lower f.
So most obviously the speed of light changes with that of the emitter of
light.
Which throws out the first postulate of SR and so the whole thing comes
crashing down.
As I have been pointing out since 2005.

> It is not possible that the speed of light can be changed by the speed of the
> source because the speed of light in a frame of reference is measured with TWO
> watches, and the two watches that measure it are in the receiver's frame of
> reference .

Makes no sense, above. For such an important point, a lot of effort must
be made to make sense.

The speed of light depends upon the quality of the medium, and that is
found from the electromagnetic travelling wave formulations, depending
upon magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity. That the values
from there matched with experimental results is one of the greatest
triumphs of theoretical and experimental physics. After that, the reality
of electromagnetic waves became known, and put to practical use.

Light is kinetic in quality, just like throwing an object from a moving
platform. Wave motion is an essentially kinetic exercise. Just look at the
water wave. When a duck flaps the still water, the waves move faster in
the direction of the force applied. For the source pushes the medium there
with extra velocity.

> This de facto makes the speed of the source completely useless to take into
> account to produce this speed.

Again, this makes no sense.
The speed of the source relates to frequency shift, so we can find how
fast objects are moving.

> On the other hand, if the speed of the source has no importance on the speed of
> the wave,

Which is wrong, of course, see above.
The speed of the source increases or decreases the speed of the wave.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

it is important to know that it has an importance on the wavelength and
the energy of the photon.
>
> λ'=λ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosα.Vo/c)
> λ'=λ.(1-cosα'.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
> λ'=λ.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>
> hυ'=hυ.(1+cosα.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
> hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1-cosα'.Vo/c)
> hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
>
> Thank you for listening.
>
> R.H.

Le 02/04/2024 à 20:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 02/04/2024 à 02:50, Arindam Banerjee a écrit :
>> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
>>> least as taught today, was incorrect.
>>
>> It is rubbish.
>>
>>> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which
>>> is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply
>>> said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same
>>> thing.
>>
>> No, it is not incorrect. It is rubbish. For light speed varies with the speed
>> of the emitter, as shown by the correct understanding of the MMI expt results on
>> one hand; and there is violation of inertia with the Lorenz force not having equal
>> and opposite reaction. With inertia violated, with my railgun experiments, the
>> essential basis for Eisntein's 1905 paper gets outed.
>
>
> I am surprised that you want to refute things that are so obvious, and
> especially by giving false arguments.

I don't give false arguments. I find new theories in physics and prove
them with detailed experiments.

The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ

***

Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near
space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s

and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia
can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting
that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s

*****

Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ

Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ

Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ

Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ

Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ

Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ

Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ

*******

2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics

****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ

The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ

*****

Den 01.04.2024 22:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 01/04/2024 à 21:59, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> measure any speed.
>>
>> But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
>> angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
>> the apparent transversal velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.
>
> But NO!

You are quoting a correct statement out of context, and crying NO!

Why?

>
> Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> If v=c and cos=0 (tranversal move), Vapp=c.
Let's stay in the real world.

The only objects moving at "relativistic speeds" we
can visually observe, are astronomical objects, like
the matter in the jets from some galaxies (from their
central black hole).

The only motion we can visually observe, is transversal motion.

So if the jet is coming right at us, we will see the matter
at exactly the same point at the centre of the galaxy, the apparent
speed of the matter is zero.

But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
the apparent transversal velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

My explanation frm a post written back in 2003:
===============================================

About "superluminal jets":
--------------------------
an example of which you can see here:
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/superlum/m87jet_hst_big.jpg

The "basic effect" is simple:
An object is moving with a speed v straight towards the observer O.

O ------------------------------B--------A
|<- L ->|
The time interval between the observation of light emitted from
A and B will be the time interval between the emissions minus
the time the light uses to go from A to B:
t_o = L/v - L/c
The "apparent speed" will be the distance between A and B divided by
the observed time interval:
v_app = L/t_o = v/(1-v/c)
Note that v_app > c when v > c/2.

However, the above is not possible to observe in the real world,
of the obvious reason that you will have no way of observing the
distance L.
So what is observed?

Matter in the jets are moving at high speed.
As this matter ploughs through the intergalactic medium (very thin gas),
radiation - mostly at radio frequencies - is emitted. It is this
radiation and not the matter itself that is observed.
The stream of matter is however not very steady. It may be "blobs" of
matter in the jets which will be visible in the observed radiation.
These "blobs" are observed to move, and it is supposed that the matter
in the jets move with the same speed as the observed "blobs".

So what really is observed is the angular speed of these blobs,
from which you can calculate the transversal speed assuming you know
the distance to the source.

So let's redo the calculations above on a more realistic case:

O * galaxy
angle of jet from A
line of sight = a /
/ jet
/
B

The observed time interval between reception of light emitted from A
and B (distance L) will be:
t_o = L/v - L*cos(a)/c
The apparent _transversal_ speed will be the apparent _transversal_
distance divided by this time interval:
v_app = L*sin(a)/t_o = v*sin(a)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(a))

Note that v_app > c when v > c/(sin(a)+cos(a))
Note also that since (sin(a)+cos(a)) > 1 for any a < pi/2, v_app can
as long as the jet is moving against the observer be > c if v is
sufficiently close to c.

For example, if a = pi/4 the apparent transversal speed is superluminal
if v > ca. 0.7*c

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 01.04.2024 22:03, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 01/04/2024 à 21:58, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>> Den 30.03.2024 14:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>>> Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.
>>>
>>> Can you show me a little fact of it.
>>
>> Again? I have done it several times, but OK:
>>
>> It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
>> in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.
>>
>> Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
>> in the Large Hadron Collider is  6927⋅c.
>>
>> Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.
>>

>
> Je ne prends pas la peine de répondre.
>
> Ca n'en vaut malheureusement pas la peine.
>
> R.H.

Does this mean that you have accepted that
your theory is falsified?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 3/31/2024 10:54 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:33, Volney a écrit :
>> On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>> Since experiment agrees with special relativity, it's obvious that
>> Richard Hachel is wrong.
>
> Your remark is biased.

Only toward the facts and what the facts mean.
>
> I'll let you think about why.
>
Because I want reality.

Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>>
>> Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>> If v=c and cos=0 (tranversal move), Vapp=c.
> Let's stay in the real world.
>
> The only objects moving at "relativistic speeds" we
> can visually observe, are astronomical objects, like
> the matter in the jets from some galaxies (from their
> central black hole).
>
> The only motion we can visually observe, is transversal motion.
>
> So if the jet is coming right at us, we will see the matter
> at exactly the same point at the centre of the galaxy, the apparent
> speed of the matter is zero.
>
> But when it is approaching you at an angle, you can measure the
> angular velocity, and when the distance is known, you can calculate
> the apparent transversal velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.

No. It's impossible.

“There will therefore be an impassable speed limit which will extend to
all particles, objects, or laws of physics.”
Doctor Richard Hachel November 9, 1985 Conference in
Wroclaw (Polska).

You cannot have an observable speed (Vo) greater than c.

Which is also synonymous with any speed measured by a transverse observer.

For apparent speeds, you can have, if µ is negative (µ=0 to -180°),
apparent speeds
greater than that of light.

I'll let you calculate what is the observable speed necessary to obtain an
apparent speed greater than that of light if µ=180°

R.H.

Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 01.04.2024 22:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

> http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/superlum/m87jet_hst_big.jpg

That's what I say.

But here the jet is not transversal.

Well, yes, Vapp > c

R.H.

Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> The "basic effect" is simple:

Paul, you're talking nonsense.

The apparent speed of an object crossing my line of sight,
is like Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) where µ is the angle that the direction of
the object makes, and the direction of my aim.

If this object moves towards me, then cosµ=-1.

As Jean-Pierre Python rightly says, who for once is not mistaken, we
obtain v_app=v/(1-v/c)

In Hachel writing: Vapp=Vo/(1-Vo/c)

We want to know at what speed the object must move so that its apparent
displacement is equal to or greater than c.

Vo=Vapp/(1+Vapp/c)

If Vapp=c or more, Vo>c/2

R.H.

Volney wrote:

>>> On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:07, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>> Since experiment agrees with special relativity, it's obvious that
>>> Richard Hachel is wrong.
>>
>> Your remark is biased.
>
> Only toward the facts and what the facts mean.
>>
>> I'll let you think about why.
>>
> Because I want reality.

not what your fucking brain says it is. These guys don't undrestand
physics at all. hERE we go, one more time, so you undrestand what you say.

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗼𝗻_𝗗𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀_𝘄𝗮𝘀_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗮𝗰𝘁_–_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄
The head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service called the strike an
“ugly and criminal step” by Israel
https://%72t.com/russia/595291-naryshkin-israel-syria-terrorist-attack/

Dismantling Israel is a universal moral obligation.

Israel - supported terrorists by SATANIC US, period.

Russia let it happen by preventing Syria using their SS -400S

There is no doubt now. The US is a state-sponsor 𝙤𝙛_𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙚 and 𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙢.

Who sponsors Israel? USA, UK, Germany . . . Shameful.

Volney wrote:

>> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:33, Volney a écrit :
>>> On 3/31/2024 8:23 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Since experiment agrees with special relativity, it's obvious that
>>> Richard Hachel is wrong.
>>
>> Your remark is biased.
>
> Only toward the facts and what the facts mean.
>>
>> I'll let you think about why.
>>
> Because I want reality.

and listen up, when an warning of terrorism 𝙞𝙨_𝙩𝙤𝙤_𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡, that's an
𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣_𝙤𝙛_𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙩.

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗶𝗽-𝗼𝗳𝗳_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸
Moscow was warned about possibility of such an event but data was too
general, Foreign Intelligence chief Sergey Naryshkin said
https://www.%72t.com/russia/595284-us-information-moscow-attack-naryshkin/

Imagine America behind the scenes in bed with these terrorists weaponizing
them against Russia and sitting upon all of the specifics yet sharing
unhelpful general info with Moscow - look at all the shame beaming through
America eyes

Intelligence services of the USA did not share all information with Russia
because the terrorist attack would have failed. And sharing all
informations would mean accepting the responsibility.

This was not a warning 𝙗𝙪𝙩_𝙖_𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩_𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙐𝙎. Giving any details would have
given Russia the means to prepare for it.

The US warns about themselves. It would’ve been strange for it to contain
the information on what the US had intended to do.

Tipoffs like that are only meant to mislead.

lol so the US and Ukraine are responsible even though they warned them?
This is by far the dumbest logic I've ever seen anyone try to use. Good
job.

The Afghanistan-based offshoot of the Islamic State terrorist group
belongs to US/UK/Mossad

On 4/1/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 01/04/2024 à 21:58, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

>>> Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
>>> who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?
>>
>> Your falsified theory is obviously much better than
>> the theory that's never falsified.
>> Right? :-D
>
> Je ne prends pas la peine de répondre.
>
> Ca n'en vaut malheureusement pas la peine.
>
It's not nice to tell Paul to take a long walk off a short pier.

On 3/31/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :
>> On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>> Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid physicists
>>> who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?
>>>
>> The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
>> Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
>> (within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's
>> predictions. Just one.
>
> One will not be enough more than ten.

It would take just one repeatable experiment to prove SR to be wrong.
Including verification of some of your claims as they are inconsistent
with SR. So far this hasn't happened.
>
> I think you still don't understand the human problem.
>
> Look at what is happening today in Ukraine.

Ukraine has nothing to do with SR or your claims.

All I will say is that you are repeating russian propaganda here.
Remember, the first casualty in any war is the truth. And russia always
lies.

> And you say to me: "Give us proof that what you say about the SR is true"?

That's how science works. Come up with a hypothesis and provide evidence
that it's valid. (actually come up with a disproof which invalidates it)
>
> But you don't understand anything, Mac, you don't UNDERSTAND anything.

I understand how science works.
>
> I gave cases of proof.

No you did not. You posted many claims which others has told you are
wrong, and why they are wrong. You ignore them and repeat your claims.
Also no such thing as proof in physics, only disproof.

On 4/1/2024 7:50 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 01/04/2024 à 10:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>>> So we will have disagreed on everything.
>>> But it does not matter.
>>
>> That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?
>
> Why use the word “lies”.
> If you think I'm wrong, use the word "errors".
>
If it's deliberate, it's a lie. Since you ignore criticism of your
"errors" I think they are deliberate, thus they are lies.

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 17:21, Volney pisze:
> On 3/31/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:36, Volney a écrit :
>>> On 3/31/2024 8:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who has the best theory? Hachel, or all a clique of stupid
>>>> physicists who don't want to do science, but the poor cock competition?
>>>>
>>> The best theory is the one which matches experimental results.
>>> Point out just one experiment which has results inconsistent with SR
>>> (within its domain) but agrees with "Dr." Richard Hachel's
>>> predictions. Just one.
>>
>> One will not be enough more than ten.
>
> It would take just one repeatable experiment to prove SR to be wrong.

Only such an idiot can believe such an
idiotic lie, stupid Mike.
And in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your insane religion
"improper" clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Le 02/04/2024 à 15:48, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> The "basic effect" is simple:
>
> Paul, you're talking nonsense.
>
> The apparent speed of an object crossing my line of sight,
> is like Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) where µ is the angle that the direction of the
> object makes, and the direction of my aim.
>
> If this object moves towards me, then cosµ=-1.
>
> As Jean-Pierre Python rightly says, who for once is not mistaken, we obtain
> v_app=v/(1-v/c)

What I addressed in my article, where the object is moving along the line
of sight,
(either receeding or approaching) is NOT what Paul is talking about.

You've still not properly read what he wrote.

You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.

And a pathological liar.

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:

> You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.
>
> And a pathological liar.
All the worshippers of your idiot guru are.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

Le 02/04/2024 à 21:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 02.04.2024 o 20:39, Python pisze:
>
>> You are an incurable hypocrite, Richard.
>>
>> And a pathological liar.
> All the worshippers of your idiot guru are.
> BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?

You're not going well these days, Maciej, are you? Sad.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity,
> at least as taught today, was incorrect.
> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist,
> which is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was
> false, I simply said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far
> from being the same thing.
> Many relativistic equations are correct, but not all of them, and those
> that are not, are not significantly correct.
> What is very strange is that despite the ease with which I refute certain
> points, those who read me often get stuck in stupid refutations, like for
> example Python, which is a very pathognomonic case.
> Faced with the problem I pose, he, like everyone else, loses his temper,
> insults, and says nonsense.
> One of the greatest theoretical proofs that I cannot be wrong, despite
> everything that people will tell you (because the opposition is very
> strong to the new concepts, even if they are superb and demonstrable), is
> the way in which I give a number of equations where none are given or
> clearly abstract equations.
> A textbook case is the Langevin traveler in apparent mode (what we would
> see in ultra-powerful telescopes) which I have been talking about for 40
> years in a dismaying intellectual desert.
> Let's take the classic case:
> Let's take a look at Stella's return. What could be simpler to understand
> than Stella's own time, in the example considered (Vo=0.8c, d=12al), will
> be Tr=9 years for this return.
> No one has ever been able to contradict, and no one will ever contradict
> (except the Newtonians, but with them, we won't row very far).
> But what could be simpler to understand than Stella, in her frame of
> reference, sees the earth (Vo=0.8c) returning towards her at Vapp=4c.
> I remind you, as Jean-Pierre Python finds it hard to believe, that
> Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) and that those who have been contradicting me for
> 40 years had better go back to school.
> The evidence is then dazzling for anyone who wants to abandon Newtonian
> and even Einsteinian a priori. The covered distance
> by land for Stella cannot be the same as the distance traveled by Stella
> for Terrence (12 al).
> The distance is obviously x=Vapp.Tr

> x=4c*9years

> So D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

> Or so, D'=D.[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)+cosµ.Vr/c]

> It is so obvious that I will never understand how one can oppose rapid and
> inconsiderate refutations to everything I have been saying for 40 years,
> and in particular on rotating frames of reference or uniformly accelerated
> frames of reference, theoretical and logical proofs in support, supporting
> experimental evidence too.

> At this level, we are no longer in science, but in sociology, even
> theology:
> “We don’t want this man to rule over us.”
> It's downright stupid.

> R.H.

You will be condemned to forever wasting your time on this (like in the
article you posted) as long as you refuse to learn physics.

--
Jan

Le 02/04/2024 à 21:19, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:

>> So D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
>
>> Or so, D'=D.[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)+cosµ.Vr/c]

> You will be condemned to forever wasting your time on this (like in the
> article you posted) as long as you refuse to learn physics.
>
> --
> Jan

I think you don't understand the problem,
and that this blindness can last for decades.

Everything that happens here, and on physics forums in general, keeps
coming back to the same thing, no one makes the effort to understand.
Absolutely no one.

For various reasons, the most important of which is conformism, and
sometimes, a little, arrogance.

It's as if I were saying: "You know, friends, you shouldn't add
relativistic speeds, like you add Newtonian speeds. For example, if you
add a speed of 0.5c to a speed of 0.5c, you do not get v=c, but v=0.8c"
and I was told "You don't know anything about elementary mathematics, you
have to learn elementary mathematics, and you would see that 0.5+0.5=1. "

Don't laugh friends, that's exactly what's happening everywhere.

They tell me: you have to learn physics.

It's surreal.

R.H.