Le 11/04/2024 à 18:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 11.04.2024 o 13:08, Python pisze:
>> Le 11/04/2024 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am 10.04.2024 um 15:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, perhaps our current state of the art technology wrt
>>>>>>> observing the
>>>>>>> universe from our little earth is damn near pre embryonic wrt the
>>>>>>> grand
>>>>>>> scheme of things... ;^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usual observations from our perspective of the universe would
>>>>>> require to
>>>>>> remove the effects of the delay, which is caused by the finite
>>>>>> speed of
>>>>>> light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this is not done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is done!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> You have definitely never read any paper about astronomy, or the
>>>>> history
>>>>> of astronomy. As a matter of fact one of the main issue in astronomy is
>>>>> to determine the distance of objects as precisely as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas, why are you constantly making up stuff of that kind? Is it
>>>>> malice
>>>>> or stupidity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Both?
>>>>
>>>> Hanlon's razor applies, I think.
>>>>
>>>> And for amusement: noting different delays of quasar fluctuations,
>>>> in passing through an Einstein lens, is a practical way
>>>> of establishing their cosmological distance,
>>>
>>> Sure, the delay is known.
>>>
>>> But how would you remove it?
>>>
>>> The difference in time is actually HUGE, hence you would need to wait
>>> a VERY long time, if you want to know the present position of stars
>>> seen a few billion light years away.
>>
>> *facepalm*
>>
>> Q. How to know what week day and month day will tomorrow be ?
>
> 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? Are you still trying
> to determine its properties applying a French
> definition of a different word?

Don't be jealous, Maciej. You are as stupid as Thomas, even if
a different way.

W dniu 11.04.2024 o 19:10, Python pisze:
> Le 11/04/2024 à 18:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 11.04.2024 o 13:08, Python pisze:
>>> Le 11/04/2024 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>> Am 10.04.2024 um 15:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, perhaps our current state of the art technology wrt
>>>>>>>> observing the
>>>>>>>> universe from our little earth is damn near pre embryonic wrt
>>>>>>>> the grand
>>>>>>>> scheme of things... ;^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Usual observations from our perspective of the universe would
>>>>>>> require to
>>>>>>> remove the effects of the delay, which is caused by the finite
>>>>>>> speed of
>>>>>>> light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this is not done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it is done!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have definitely never read any paper about astronomy, or the
>>>>>> history
>>>>>> of astronomy. As a matter of fact one of the main issue in
>>>>>> astronomy is
>>>>>> to determine the distance of objects as precisely as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas, why are you constantly making up stuff of that kind? Is it
>>>>>> malice
>>>>>> or stupidity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hanlon's razor applies, I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> And for amusement: noting different delays of quasar fluctuations,
>>>>> in passing through an Einstein lens, is a practical way
>>>>> of establishing their cosmological distance,
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the delay is known.
>>>>
>>>> But how would you remove it?
>>>>
>>>> The difference in time is actually HUGE, hence you would need to
>>>> wait a VERY long time, if you want to know the present position of
>>>> stars seen a few billion light years away.
>>>
>>> *facepalm*
>>>
>>> Q. How to know what week day and month day will tomorrow be ?
>>
>> 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? Are you still trying
>> to determine its properties applying a French
>> definition of a different word?
>
> Don't be jealous, Maciej. You are as stupid as Thomas, even if
> a different way.
>
>

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? Are you still trying
to determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?

Le 11/04/2024 à 21:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 11.04.2024 o 19:10, Python pisze:
>> Don't be jealous, Maciej. You are as stupid as Thomas, even if
>> a different way.

>
> 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? Are you still trying
> to determine its properties applying a French
> definition of a different word?

Can you explain to Python that if he really wanted to understand the
theory of relativity, he would start by setting To²=Tr²+Et² for all
frames of reference.
And he wouldn't deviate an inch from it.
However, he does not admit this for accelerated frames of reference, and
when I write: "If two different observers use an identical path, in
identical observable times, their proper times will be identical", he
claims that I am sabotaging the very bases of the theory of relativity.

R.H.

Le 11/04/2024 à 23:06, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 11/04/2024 à 21:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 11.04.2024 o 19:10, Python pisze:
>>> Don't be jealous, Maciej. You are as stupid as Thomas, even if
>>> a different way.
>
>>
>> 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? Are you still trying
>> to determine its properties applying a French
>> definition of a different word?
>
> Can you explain to Python that if he really wanted to understand the theory of
> relativity, he would start by setting To²=Tr²+Et² for all frames of reference.
> And he wouldn't deviate an inch from it.
> However, he does not admit this for accelerated frames of reference, and when I
> write: "If two different observers use an identical path, in identical observable
> times, their proper times will be identical", he claims that I am sabotaging the
> very bases of the theory of relativity.

It is quite obvious because when you talk about "identical paths" you are
talking
about spacial parts, so "to go through identical path" is a frame
dependent
property, while having the same proper times is not, which proves that
your claim
is absurd /per se/.

Another way to conclude that your claim is absurd is to consider the
trajectory of the
accelerated twin from the point of view of the inertial one.

It has been pointed out by numerous people.

By the way, you recently claimed that for any pair of events the
space-time interval
between them is always zero, and then stayed quite silent about that. How
come ?

Le 11/04/2024 à 23:55, Python a écrit :

> Another way to conclude that your claim is absurd is to consider the trajectory
> of the
> accelerated twin from the point of view of the inertial one.

From the point of view of the inertial twin (I think you mean the twin in
uniform Galilean motion), the trajectory of the accelerated twin is a
joint state, a gradual deceleration, a steady state, a gradual
re-acceleration and finally a joint state .
Between the two conjoined states, the proper times will be identical.
From the perspective of the accelerated twin, the trajectory of the
Galilean twin is a joint state, a gradual deceleration, a steady state, a
gradual re-acceleration and finally a joint state.
Between the two conjoined states, the proper elapsed times will be
identical.

> It has been pointed out by numerous people.

Absolutely not.

R.H.

Le 12/04/2024 à 00:14, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 11/04/2024 à 23:55, Python a écrit :
>
>> Another way to conclude that your claim is absurd is to consider the trajectory
>> of the
>> accelerated twin from the point of view of the inertial one.
>
> From the point of view of the inertial twin (I think you mean the twin in
> uniform Galilean motion), the trajectory of the accelerated twin is a joint state,
> a gradual deceleration, a steady state, a gradual re-acceleration and finally a
> joint state .
> Between the two conjoined states, the proper times will be identical.

So you would conclude the same if you substitute Earth (considered
inertial) to the
inertial twin. Right?

> From the perspective of the accelerated twin, the trajectory of the Galilean
> twin is a joint state, a gradual deceleration, a steady state, a gradual
> re-acceleration and finally a joint state.
> Between the two conjoined states, the proper elapsed times will be identical.
>
>> It has been pointed out by numerous people.
>
> Absolutely not.

It has, here and on fr.sci.physique. Denying this is a plain lie.

W dniu 11.04.2024 o 23:55, Python pisze:
> Le 11/04/2024 à 23:06, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 11/04/2024 à 21:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> W dniu 11.04.2024 o 19:10, Python pisze:
>>>> Don't be jealous, Maciej. You are as stupid as Thomas, even if
>>>> a different way.
>>
>>>
>>> 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? Are you still trying
>>> to determine its properties applying a French
>>> definition of a different word?
>>
>> Can you explain to Python that if he really wanted to understand the
>> theory of relativity, he would start by setting To²=Tr²+Et² for all
>> frames of reference.
>> And he wouldn't deviate an inch from it.
>> However, he does not admit this for accelerated frames of reference,
>> and when I write: "If two different observers use an identical path,
>> in identical observable times, their proper times will be identical",
>> he claims that I am sabotaging the very bases of the theory of
>> relativity.
>
> It is quite obvious because when you talk about "identical paths" you

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? Are you still trying
to determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?

Am Donnerstag000011, 11.04.2024 um 13:08 schrieb Python:
> Le 11/04/2024 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 10.04.2024 um 15:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, perhaps our current state of the art technology wrt
>>>>>> observing the
>>>>>> universe from our little earth is damn near pre embryonic wrt the
>>>>>> grand
>>>>>> scheme of things... ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Usual observations from our perspective of the universe would
>>>>> require to
>>>>> remove the effects of the delay, which is caused by the finite
>>>>> speed of
>>>>> light.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this is not done.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is done!!!
>>>>
>>>> You have definitely never read any paper about astronomy, or the
>>>> history
>>>> of astronomy. As a matter of fact one of the main issue in astronomy is
>>>> to determine the distance of objects as precisely as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas, why are you constantly making up stuff of that kind? Is it
>>>> malice
>>>> or stupidity?
>>>>
>>>> Both?
>>>
>>> Hanlon's razor applies, I think.
>>>
>>> And for amusement: noting different delays of quasar fluctuations,
>>> in passing through an Einstein lens, is a practical way
>>> of establishing their cosmological distance,
>>
>> Sure, the delay is known.
>>
>> But how would you remove it?
>>
>> The difference in time is actually HUGE, hence you would need to wait
>> a VERY long time, if you want to know the present position of stars
>> seen a few billion light years away.
>
> *facepalm*
>
> Q. How to know what week day and month day will tomorrow be ?
> A. Wait 24 hours, then look at your phone

You should hit a little harder, because it's not just weaks nor even
years you need to wait.

To measure the position of a star in one billion light years distance
you need to wait a billion years, before you can actually see the light
emitted from that star.

Because that is impossible, we simply don't know to were those stars
went in the meantime.

We know that stars move around in the universe, but cannot tell, to were
they went in the unobserved time of the last billion years.

It is therefore entirely pointless to figure out gravity between
forground and background stars.

It may evetually be possible, to make plausible predictions about their
future fate. But to do so, we would need to know, what cosmologists
actually try to figure out: the influence of gravity by other objects.

>
>> In the meantime cosmologists explain the positions of stars, which do
>> not belong to the same time.
>
> In the meantime cosmologists are not idiots, they know about physics
> (while you do not).

Well, they are certainly smart enough to stay in they job.

TH

Le 12/04/2024 à 07:45, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Donnerstag000011, 11.04.2024 um 13:08 schrieb Python:
>> Le 11/04/2024 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am 10.04.2024 um 15:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, perhaps our current state of the art technology wrt
>>>>>>> observing the
>>>>>>> universe from our little earth is damn near pre embryonic wrt the
>>>>>>> grand
>>>>>>> scheme of things... ;^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usual observations from our perspective of the universe would
>>>>>> require to
>>>>>> remove the effects of the delay, which is caused by the finite
>>>>>> speed of
>>>>>> light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this is not done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is done!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> You have definitely never read any paper about astronomy, or the
>>>>> history
>>>>> of astronomy. As a matter of fact one of the main issue in astronomy is
>>>>> to determine the distance of objects as precisely as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas, why are you constantly making up stuff of that kind? Is it
>>>>> malice
>>>>> or stupidity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Both?
>>>>
>>>> Hanlon's razor applies, I think.
>>>>
>>>> And for amusement: noting different delays of quasar fluctuations,
>>>> in passing through an Einstein lens, is a practical way
>>>> of establishing their cosmological distance,
>>>
>>> Sure, the delay is known.
>>>
>>> But how would you remove it?
>>>
>>> The difference in time is actually HUGE, hence you would need to wait
>>> a VERY long time, if you want to know the present position of stars
>>> seen a few billion light years away.
>>
>> *facepalm*
>>
>> Q. How to know what week day and month day will tomorrow be ?
>> A. Wait 24 hours, then look at your phone
>
> You should hit a little harder, because it's not just weaks nor even
> years you need to wait.
>
> To measure the position of a star in one billion light years distance
> you need to wait a billion years, before you can actually see the light
> emitted from that star.
>
> Because that is impossible, we simply don't know to were those stars
> went in the meantime.
>
> We know that stars move around in the universe, but cannot tell, to were
> they went in the unobserved time of the last billion years.
>
> It is therefore entirely pointless to figure out gravity between
> forground and background stars.
>
> It may evetually be possible, to make plausible predictions about their
> future fate. But to do so, we would need to know, what cosmologists
> actually try to figure out: the influence of gravity by other objects.

Sure, so sad we do not have any kind of model of gravitational
interactions
consistent with experiments. If only...

LOL.

On 4/11/2024 10:45 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

[...]

> To measure the position of a star in one billion light years distance
> you need to wait a billion years, before you can actually see the light
> emitted from that star.
>
> Because that is impossible, we simply don't know to were those stars
> went in the meantime.

Think of taking a look at a star A that is say, 100 light years from
Earth. Now, look at some other stars around it and try to create a
little map. Okay, now jump to the star A right now. Well, that star is
most likely to be in a radically different place, or even dead via
supernova we have had a chance to detect yet. The map is going to be
meaningless.

[...]

On 4/12/2024 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/11/2024 10:45 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> To measure the position of a star in one billion light years distance
>> you need to wait a billion years, before you can actually see the
>> light emitted from that star.
>>
>> Because that is impossible, we simply don't know to were those stars
>> went in the meantime.
>
> Think of taking a look at a star A that is say, 100 light years from
> Earth. Now, look at some other stars around it and try to create a
> little map. Okay, now jump to the star A right now. Well, that star is
> most likely to be in a radically different place, or even dead via
> supernova we have had a chance to detect yet. The map is going to be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or even dead via supernova we have _NOT_ had a chance to detect yet..

Damn typos!

> meaningless.
>
> [...]
>

Jump to star A that we can see, only to find out that it died.

Le 12/04/2024 à 22:50, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :
> On 4/11/2024 10:45 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> To measure the position of a star in one billion light years distance
>> you need to wait a billion years, before you can actually see the light
>> emitted from that star.
>>
>> Because that is impossible, we simply don't know to were those stars
>> went in the meantime.
>
> Think of taking a look at a star A that is say, 100 light years from
> Earth. Now, look at some other stars around it and try to create a
> little map. Okay, now jump to the star A right now. Well, that star is
> most likely to be in a radically different place, or even dead via
> supernova we have had a chance to detect yet. The map is going to be
> meaningless.
>
> [...]

I will never understand how today's physicists can keep so much dust in
their eyes, only to see nothing.

No matter how much I try to correct them, nothing works.

They continue.

And I repeat like a parrot, in the void, like John the Baptist in the
desert for forty years:
“This horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in this
telescope, I see them live, absolutely indicative of themselves”

But the immense human stupidity, which believes itself to be intelligent,
constantly answers me, without thinking, without understanding ANYTHING:
"You are wrong, the speed of light is c, you are an idiot who doesn't know
that" .

Blindness is formidable.

R.H.

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 4/11/2024 10:45 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> To measure the position of a star in one billion light years distance
>> you need to wait a billion years, before you can actually see the light
>> emitted from that star.
>>
>> Because that is impossible, we simply don't know to were those stars
>> went in the meantime.
>
> Think of taking a look at a star A that is say, 100 light years from
> Earth. Now, look at some other stars around it and try to create a
> little map. Okay, now jump to the star A right now. Well, that star is
> most likely to be in a radically different place, or even dead via
> supernova we have had a chance to detect yet. The map is going to be
> meaningless.

𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙢 jumping up and down to satan, exactly as written in The Bible.

𝗞𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲_𝘀𝗰𝘂𝗺_𝗷𝘂𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘂𝗽_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮
https://seed191.b%69%74c%68ute.com/9G0DhX7u29e3/h4k8Jcohl1X7.mp4

On 04/11/2024 01:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.04.2024 um 15:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, perhaps our current state of the art technology wrt observing
>>>>> the
>>>>> universe from our little earth is damn near pre embryonic wrt the
>>>>> grand
>>>>> scheme of things... ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Usual observations from our perspective of the universe would
>>>> require to
>>>> remove the effects of the delay, which is caused by the finite speed of
>>>> light.
>>>>
>>>> But this is not done.
>>>
>>> Of course it is done!!!
>>>
>>> You have definitely never read any paper about astronomy, or the history
>>> of astronomy. As a matter of fact one of the main issue in astronomy is
>>> to determine the distance of objects as precisely as possible.
>>>
>>> Thomas, why are you constantly making up stuff of that kind? Is it
>>> malice
>>> or stupidity?
>>>
>>> Both?
>>
>> Hanlon's razor applies, I think.
>>
>> And for amusement: noting different delays of quasar fluctuations,
>> in passing through an Einstein lens, is a practical way
>> of establishing their cosmological distance,
>
> Sure, the delay is known.
>
> But how would you remove it?
>
> The difference in time is actually HUGE, hence you would need to wait a
> VERY long time, if you want to know the present position of stars seen a
> few billion light years away.
>
> In the meantime cosmologists explain the positions of stars, which do
> not belong to the same time.
>
> TH
>
>
>

With adding FitzGerald back to Lorentz,
and separating the light-like and space-like from each other,
or Einstein's "spacial" for the light-like local
and usual enough "spatial" for the space-like
all governed by GR neatly enough,
and having central rotational moments and symmetries
their own thing with regards to space-contraction (FitzGerald),
and a simple notion that space and geometries and frames
go together in space-frames and frame-spaces,
and it's still all the same an interpretation of GR,
actually make for quite a good theory.

This is that just scaling otherwise the "missing parts"
or the "off parts" for a given view like "oh, just
re-write time back through history", is a real pile
of nothing, because both Big Bang and Steady State
have unfalsifiable models.

Thus, it's sort of falsifiable that there's both.

The idea then that in the micro-scale there are white-holes,
and in the macro-scale that there's a larger actual physical
constant that affects to reflect the distribution of the
objects in the cosmology, and hierarchically, as of models
of orbits, plainly, and that rotating frames are independent,
is just as simple as that.

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> On 4/12/2024 1:50 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 4/11/2024 10:45 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> To measure the position of a star in one billion light years distance
> >> you need to wait a billion years, before you can actually see the
> >> light emitted from that star.
> >>
> >> Because that is impossible, we simply don't know to were those stars
> >> went in the meantime.
> >
> > Think of taking a look at a star A that is say, 100 light years from
> > Earth. Now, look at some other stars around it and try to create a
> > little map. Okay, now jump to the star A right now. Well, that star is
> > most likely to be in a radically different place, or even dead via
> > supernova we have had a chance to detect yet. The map is going to be
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

star A has turned into dark matter. Where do you think dark matter comes from? a black hole...very dark hole.

Dark matter is the ocean of the universe.

Only less than 5 percent of matter floats on the universe ocean.

The same it is here where i live on earth. 97 percent of the earth is..wet matter.

Dark matter
is wet.

You just happen to be inside a
very samll air bubble.

The rest is...wet.

Now, the question is..."What is wet?"

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

The Starmaker wrote:

> star A has turned into dark matter. Where do you think dark matter comes
> from? a black hole...very dark hole. Dark matter is the ocean of the
> universe. Only less than 5 percent of matter floats on the universe
> ocean.

you scientists physicists in relativity don't know what war is all about.
You think it's Russia sucking dick from Ukruna long time. Watch here,

𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁_𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸
Any country that provides an air or land passage for West Jerusalem’s
troops will face Tehran’s wrath, the Islamic Republic has said
https://www.r%74.com/news/595888-iran-israel-attack-warning/

𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹:_𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀
Tehran has launched retaliatory strikes following a deadly airstrike that
killed two Iranian generals earlier this month
https://www.r%74.com/news/595873-israel-iran-live-updates/

Missiles flying over Amman - US/UK planes in action - Jordanian Air Force
grounded - some missile debris in the streets of Amman

Israel is sure looking ridiculous now. No more tough talk

7 missiles hit important airbase in Zionville

Russian supplied S300 radar now fully active over Teran