Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #652527 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-03-29 13:25 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-04-02 15:46 -0700 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 64 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
[SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-03-29 13:25 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Mee'k Pagano Selvaggio <eaoa@eeso.it> - 2024-03-29 14:16 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-03-30 13:22 +0100
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-03-30 13:15 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-03-30 13:31 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-03-31 14:08 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-03-31 12:23 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-31 09:33 -0400
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-31 16:06 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-03-31 14:54 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Gaylord Chalyh Turubanov <nynro@raanl.ru> - 2024-03-31 15:22 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-02 09:25 -0400
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Mitchel Shirinkin Balahowski <hh@hmhec.ru> - 2024-04-02 14:18 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Ren Christakos Haritopoulos <ana@lror.gr> - 2024-04-02 14:33 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-04-01 22:00 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-01 20:23 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-04-02 14:50 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-02 13:25 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-04-03 22:26 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-03 23:12 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-04 00:08 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-03 19:28 -0700
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-04-05 19:39 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-02 13:29 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-02 13:48 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-02 18:39 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-02 21:10 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-02 19:18 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-02 20:59 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-02 21:39 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-03 07:15 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-03 05:39 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-03 08:31 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Python <python@org.invalid> - 2024-04-03 21:01 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-04 06:56 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Sammie Pásztor Buzás <ers@ppjstt.hu> - 2024-04-04 20:19 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-03-31 12:30 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-31 09:36 -0400
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-31 16:05 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-03-31 15:06 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-31 17:33 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-03-31 21:13 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-01 10:26 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-01 11:50 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-01 16:54 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-02 11:23 -0400
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-04-01 12:50 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-01 16:55 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-02 11:21 -0400
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-02 18:33 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-04-01 22:00 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-01 20:03 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-04-02 15:03 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-02 11:24 -0400
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-31 15:59 +0200
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 00:50 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 01:14 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-01 20:11 -0700
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-02 09:39 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 12:08 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 12:36 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) - 2024-04-02 19:19 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-04-02 20:49 +0000
Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 15:46 -0700
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-02 12:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wZkX__pcRg2SAdLOudkxM1opkcA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #652622 |
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 *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-02 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <b3d1588e3565b7649eee87421fb440cc@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #652527 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-02 20:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <40o-KGY8VibveR8OlPz3lXzq2_c@jntp> |
| In reply to | #652646 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-02 15:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <660C8AB2.B7B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652646 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web