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?

I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is known on
physics forums for being a clown.
He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of
special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he doesn't
master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the world's best
critic in physical and mathematical science.
The good doctor Hachel (that's me) has already told him a hundred times to
reread correctly what is written, and to consider that there is no fault
in what is said.
But he persists in finding faults and defending ridiculous points of view.
He has stubbornly wanted to prove, for years, that Doctor Hachel is an
idiot on all points (not only in special relativity), but without ever
succeeding.
It's a shame to see him wasting time unnecessarily like this.
But you can't change a man.

R.H.

Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> 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?
>
> I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is known on
> physics forums for being a clown.
> He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of special
> relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he doesn't master at all. He
> nevertheless believes himself to be the world's best critic in physical and
> mathematical science.

Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.

You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to
have one and pretending himself to be "the best relativist physicist" in
the World. Which is pathetic given how your claims contradict the
principle of Relativity in an obvious way, as it has been shown numerous
times.

Any moderately scientificaly educated person can point out your obvious
mistakes.
As a matter of fact of lot did.

> The good doctor Hachel (that's me) has already told him a hundred times to
> reread correctly what is written, and to consider that there is no fault in what
> is said.
> But he persists in finding faults and defending ridiculous points of view.
> He has stubbornly wanted to prove, for years, that Doctor Hachel is an idiot on
> all points (not only in special relativity), but without ever succeeding.

You are indeed an pathological liar, idiot, liar and deluded mythomaniac
in numerous fields.

Fact is that your claims can be proven contradictory and absurd, fact is
that they have been.

At the point to consider Wozniak as an ally in your egomaniac fight, which
is utterly ridiculous.

JanPB wrote:
>
> 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

and how many years does it take to learn...physics?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 23:39, Python pisze:
> Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> 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?
>>
>> I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is
>> known on physics forums for being a clown.
>> He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of
>> special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he doesn't
>> master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the world's best
>> critic in physical and mathematical science.
>
> Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.
>
> You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Is "for any element of
the domain" clause still confusing you?

Le 03/04/2024 à 07:15, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 02.04.2024 o 23:39, Python pisze:
>> Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is
>>> known on physics forums for being a clown.
>>> He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of
>>> special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he doesn't
>>> master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the world's best
>>> critic in physical and mathematical science.
>>
>> Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.
>>
>> You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to
>
> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
> what a function is? Is "for any element of
> the domain" clause still confusing you?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)

"Le terme est concurrencé par celui de fonction, bien que celui-ci
désigne parfois plus spécifiquement les applications dont le but est un
ensemble de nombres et parfois, au contraire, englobe plus largement les
relations pour lesquelles chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ est
relié à au plus un élément de l'ensemble d'arrivée."

Now shut the fuck up, idiot...

W dniu 03.04.2024 o 07:39, Python pisze:
> Le 03/04/2024 à 07:15, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 02.04.2024 o 23:39, Python pisze:
>>> Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is
>>>> known on physics forums for being a clown.
>>>> He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of
>>>> special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he
>>>> doesn't master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the
>>>> world's best critic in physical and mathematical science.
>>>
>>> Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.
>>>
>>> You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to
>>
>> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
>> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
>> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
>> what a function is? Is "for any element of
>> the domain" clause still confusing you?
>
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)
>
> "Le terme est concurrencé par celui de fonction, bien que celui-ci
> désigne parfois plus spécifiquement les applications dont le but est un
> ensemble de nombres et parfois, au contraire, englobe plus largement les
> relations pour lesquelles chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ est
> relié à au plus un élément de l'ensemble d'arrivée."
>
> Now shut the fuck up, idiot...

Still confused; you're such an idiot.
Well, under the link you provided -
click blue "fonction" word and read:

En mathématiques, une fonction permet de définir un résultat (le plus
souvent numérique) pour chaque élément d’un ensemble appelé domaine.

Of course, whatever you'll read, being
stupid is not curable.

Den 02.04.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>> 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 are _many_ "superluminal" jets where the matter in
the jet appear to have a speed faster than c.

> “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).

Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
can exceed c. So what?

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

I have no idea what you mean by "observable speed".
No speed of an massive object or particle can be greater than c.

But you can observe (measure) that a "knot" in
a picture of a jet does indeed move faster than c.
The knot on the picture is not a massive object, it is
a picture of the transverse projection of the mass in the knot.

Look up Messier 87:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87

Here is a Hubble picture (again):
https://www.aavso.org/sites/default/files/images/m87-hst.jpg
A few facts:
The distance to the galaxy M87 is 54 Mly (mega light year)
The length of the jet is 5 kly (5000 light years).

From Wiki:
"In pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1999,
the motion of M87's jet was measured at four to six times
the speed of light. This phenomenon, called superluminal
motion, is an illusion caused by the relativistic velocity
of the jet."

And I will add that this illusion is also caused by a relatively
small angle between the jet and the observer's line of sight.

If we assume that two pictures was taken with one year
between them, this means that a "knot" (blob) was
_measured_ to have moved ~ 5 ly between the pictures,
so the speed appear to be ~ 5c.

Note that what is measured is the angular velocity of the "knot".
When the distance is known, the apparent transverse velocity can
be calculated.

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

A transverse observer? :-D

If the jet is transverse to the observer's line of sight then
the observed (measured) speed is simply the speed of the matter
in the knot.

So what? What's your point?

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

So what was is it you claimed was impossible?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 03/04/2024 à 08:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 03.04.2024 o 07:39, Python pisze:
>> Le 03/04/2024 à 07:15, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> W dniu 02.04.2024 o 23:39, Python pisze:
>>>> Le 02/04/2024 à 22:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> I pay no attention to the criticisms of Jean-Pierre Python, he is
>>>>> known on physics forums for being a clown.
>>>>> He doesn't understand anything, and gets mixed up on the problems of
>>>>> special relativity that he thinks he has mastered and which he
>>>>> doesn't master at all. He nevertheless believes himself to be the
>>>>> world's best critic in physical and mathematical science.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely not, I have not the kind of delusion of grandeur you have.
>>>>
>>>> You are the one with absolutely no education in science and no will to
>>>
>>> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
>>> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
>>> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
>>> what a function is? Is "for any element of
>>> the domain" clause still confusing you?
>>
>> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)
>>
>> "Le terme est concurrencé par celui de fonction, bien que celui-ci
>> désigne parfois plus spécifiquement les applications dont le but est un
>> ensemble de nombres et parfois, au contraire, englobe plus largement les
>> relations pour lesquelles chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ est
>> relié à au plus un élément de l'ensemble d'arrivée."
>>
>> Now shut the fuck up, idiot...
>
> Still confused; you're such an idiot.
> Well, under the link you provided -
> click blue "fonction" word and read:

"et parfois, au contraire ... est relié à au plus un élément "

You can't read French, can you Maciej? Do you need a translator?

> En mathématiques, une fonction permet de définir un résultat (le plus
> souvent numérique) pour chaque élément d’un ensemble appelé domaine.
>
> Of course, whatever you'll read, being
> stupid is not curable.

Oh dear... How come that one of "the better logicians Humanity ever had"
cannot grasp that a single world can have multiple definitions even among
a single community at a given time. Context is quite a too subtle concept
for you.

Fact is that "starting set" ("ensemble de départ") and domain ("domaine
de
definition") are, even today, not assumed to be identical in the French
educational system. You can whine as much as you want, it is a fact.

And it doesn't really matter, but you only focus on what does not matter,
aren't you Maciej? Because you are soooo confused about when things
matter.

W dniu 03.04.2024 o 22:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

> Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
> can exceed c. So what?

So, even your idiot guru had to finally abandon
this nonsense in his GR shit.

Le 03/04/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 03.04.2024 o 22:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>
>> Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
>> can exceed c. So what?

The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
all events occurring
at the same time ; or again, being characterized by the set of all
physical phenomena
taking place at the same time; we should be able, at least considering all
the components
fixed being in a given inertial system, to speak of absolute simultaneity,
of synchronization
cosmic, or common calendar -- these terms then being likely to acquire
real significance
physical tion -- if we could, without it varying, transpose the universal
simultaneity specific to a
particular observer to all the other inertial observers present in this
same frame of reference.
It would be enough to find any signal, or any action, by which a body
A could
interact instantly with a body B, that is to say by means of information
propagating infinitely
quickly, so that this notion of absolute simultaneity can be
experimentally proven.
We could then say that the action induced by body A was instantly
transmitted to body B, or
that the action produced by body A was carried out at the same time as its
detection by body B, and that it
exists, de facto, between A and B, a sort of reciprocal and absolute
simultaneity.
We could also imagine a round trip signal carried out over the
distance separating A from B, and carried out at
means of infinitely rapid information, such that the departure and return
times of
information is simultaneous. It would easily come to mind that if the two
watches A and B are
well tuned, the notion of general coexistence of the things of the
universe in perfect simultaneity would be
thus demonstrated.
However, this proof does not exist.
We know that a body can act on another body at a distance, for
example in the form of a wave.
electromagnetic, in the form of a mechanical shock transmitted along a
rigid rod, or under the
form of a gravitational interaction, but we have never found a signal that
is infinitely fast,
or remote action that is instantaneous. It rather seems, in fact, that
there exists, in nature, a kind
impassable speed limit, which we will find in any Galilean reference frame
considered, and which will
extend to all particles and all properties of physics.

>
> So, even your idiot guru had to finally abandon
> this nonsense in his GR shit.

The three distinct notions of classical observable speed (Vo), apparent
speed (Vapp) and real speeds (Vr) should not be confused.

No observable speed can exceed c, while the other two types offer no
limits.

R.H.

On 04/03/2024 05:08 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/04/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 03.04.2024 o 22:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>>
>>> Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
>>> can exceed c. So what?
>
> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
> all events occurring
> at the same time ; or again, being characterized by the set of all
> physical phenomena
> taking place at the same time; we should be able, at least considering
> all the components
> fixed being in a given inertial system, to speak of absolute
> simultaneity, of synchronization
> cosmic, or common calendar -- these terms then being likely to acquire
> real significance
> physical tion -- if we could, without it varying, transpose the
> universal simultaneity specific to a
> particular observer to all the other inertial observers present in this
> same frame of reference.
> It would be enough to find any signal, or any action, by which a
> body A could
> interact instantly with a body B, that is to say by means of information
> propagating infinitely
> quickly, so that this notion of absolute simultaneity can be
> experimentally proven.
> We could then say that the action induced by body A was instantly
> transmitted to body B, or
> that the action produced by body A was carried out at the same time as
> its detection by body B, and that it
> exists, de facto, between A and B, a sort of reciprocal and absolute
> simultaneity.
> We could also imagine a round trip signal carried out over the
> distance separating A from B, and carried out at
> means of infinitely rapid information, such that the departure and
> return times of
> information is simultaneous. It would easily come to mind that if the
> two watches A and B are
> well tuned, the notion of general coexistence of the things of the
> universe in perfect simultaneity would be
> thus demonstrated.
> However, this proof does not exist.
> We know that a body can act on another body at a distance, for
> example in the form of a wave.
> electromagnetic, in the form of a mechanical shock transmitted along a
> rigid rod, or under the
> form of a gravitational interaction, but we have never found a signal
> that is infinitely fast,
> or remote action that is instantaneous. It rather seems, in fact, that
> there exists, in nature, a kind
> impassable speed limit, which we will find in any Galilean reference
> frame considered, and which will
> extend to all particles and all properties of physics.
>
>>
>> So, even your idiot guru had to finally abandon
>> this nonsense in his GR shit.
>
> The three distinct notions of classical observable speed (Vo), apparent
> speed (Vapp) and real speeds (Vr) should not be confused.
>
> No observable speed can exceed c, while the other two types offer no
> limits.
>
> R.H.

So if a mass converted entirely to energy it wouldn't move at all?

W dniu 03.04.2024 o 23:01, Python pisze:

> Fact is that "starting set" ("ensemble de départ") and domain ("domaine de
> definition") are, even today, not assumed to be identical in the French
> educational system. You can whine as much as you want, it is a fact.

Of course, the reason why you're confused
about the properties of a quite simple
English word "function", and making idiotic
statemennts about it - may be caused by
your French education, why not?

So, have you already learnt what a
"function" is? Still confused about
the clause "for any element of the domain"?
("domain", not "starting set", poor stinker).

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 03.04.2024 o 23:01, Python pisze:
>> Fact is that "starting set" ("ensemble de départ") and domain ("domaine
>> de definition") are, even today, not assumed to be identical in the
>> French educational system. You can whine as much as you want, it is a
>> fact.
>
> Of course, the reason why you're confused about the properties of a
> quite simple English word "function", and making idiotic statemennts
> about it - may be caused by your French education, why not?
> So, have you already learnt what a "function" is? Still confused about
> the clause "for any element of the domain"? ("domain", not "starting
> set", poor stinker).

so true indeed, my friend. Here you see the clear difference away from
capitalism, where communism is from the people to the people, and NOT to
some few motherfucker braindead autist capitalists (see bill gaytes)
wanting you dead with vaccines.

also, the Einstine wrong one more time, he hate the chinese, saying the eat
from the ground. lol

2024_𝗫𝗶𝗮𝗼𝗺𝗶_𝗦𝗨7_𝗠𝗮𝘅_𝗶𝗻-𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗵_𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 https://youtu.be/7cdFz4zw79c

these stinking capitalists bombed Yugoslavia and destroyed ukrane.

Den 04.04.2024 02:08, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 03/04/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 03.04.2024 o 22:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>>
>>> Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
>>> can exceed c. So what?

The following seems to be a response to my statement above.

>
> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
> all events occurring
> at the same time ; or again, being characterized by the set of all
> physical phenomena
> taking place at the same time; we should be able, at least considering
> all the components
> fixed being in a given inertial system, to speak of absolute
> simultaneity, of synchronization
> cosmic, or common calendar -- these terms then being likely to acquire
> real significance
> physical tion -- if we could, without it varying, transpose the
> universal simultaneity specific to a
> particular observer to all the other inertial observers present in this
> same frame of reference.
>    It would be enough to find any signal, or any action, by which a
> body A could
> interact instantly with a body B, that is to say by means of information
> propagating infinitely
> quickly, so that this notion of absolute simultaneity can be
> experimentally proven.
>    We could then say that the action induced by body A was instantly
> transmitted to body B, or
> that the action produced by body A was carried out at the same time as
> its detection by body B, and that it
> exists, de facto, between A and B, a sort of reciprocal and absolute
> simultaneity.
>     We could also imagine a round trip signal carried out over the
> distance separating A from B, and carried out at
> means of infinitely rapid information, such that the departure and
> return times of
> information is simultaneous. It would easily come to mind that if the
> two watches A and B are
> well tuned, the notion of general coexistence of the things of the
> universe in perfect simultaneity would be
> thus demonstrated.
>     However, this proof does not exist.
What's your point with using so many words to state
the bleeding obvious?

Of course there is no such thing as "absolute simultaneity".

>     We know that a body can act on another body at a distance, for
> example in the form of a wave.
> electromagnetic, in the form of a mechanical shock transmitted along a
> rigid rod, or under the
> form of a gravitational interaction, but we have never found a signal
> that is infinitely fast,
> or remote action that is instantaneous. It rather seems, in fact, that
> there exists, in nature, a kind
> impassable speed limit, which we will find in any Galilean reference
> frame considered, and which will
> extend to all particles and all properties of physics.

So you confirm my statement quoted above above.

But you never addressed what you claimed was impossible
in my posting.

Try again?

03.04.2024 Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.04.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 02/04/2024 à 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>> 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 transverse 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 transverse velocity, which indeed may be higher than c.
>>
>> No. It's impossible.
>
> There are _many_ "superluminal" jets where the matter in
> the jet appear to have a speed faster than c.
>
Please explain why you wrote: "No. It's impossible."

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/