Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual =?UTF-8?B?ZGVzZXJ0PyA=?= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 15:46:10 -0700 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <660C8AB2.B7B@ix.netcom.com> References: Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1631897"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240402-6, 04/02/2024), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:652652 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.