Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #652527 > unrolled thread

[SR] Dismaying intellectual desert?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  [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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#652669

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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652671

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652726

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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652629

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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652630

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652643

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652644

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652645

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652650

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652651

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652656

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652657

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...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652662

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652667

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652673

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).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652692

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652575

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.

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, and 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.
I simply combine the two.
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?

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652578

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652581

W dniu 31.03.2024 o 15:36, Volney pisze:
> 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 


And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" GPS and TAI
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all the serious
clocks always did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#652585

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.

I think you still don't understand the human problem.

Look at what is happening today in Ukraine. Proof will not be enough to 
demonstrate that it is the Westerners who are seeking war with the 
Russians and not the other way around.

You can put ten, twenty proofs, you won't succeed.

We won't tell you, if you turn on your TV (in France): "Putin intervened 
in Ukraine, because he cannot do without Crimea
as an essential war port, because it can no longer tolerate eight years of 
bombings and massacres of the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine, the 
ban on speaking Russian, the presence of thermo-nuclear missiles on its 
border.

No way.

We tell you, minute after minute, on French television: "Putin is evil, he 
invaded Ukraine, he will then invade Europe, and he will eat the children 
in the incubators and rape all the little girls aged six years".

That's what they tell you today on television.

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

But you don't understand anything, Mac, you don't UNDERSTAND anything.

I gave cases of proof.

Usenet is your friend.

R.H.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web