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

#652587

On 2024-03-31 15:06:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> 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".

I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I 
have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know 
for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about 
relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.
> 
> 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.


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#652593

Le 31/03/2024 à 17:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I 
> have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know 
> for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about 
> relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.
>> 

So we will have disagreed on everything.
But it does not matter.

R.H. 

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

#652599

On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 31/03/2024 à 17:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I 
>> have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know 
>> for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about 
>> relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.
>>> 
> 
> So we will have disagreed on everything.
> But it does not matter.

That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#652603

Le 01/04/2024 à 10:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

>> So we will have disagreed on everything.
>> But it does not matter.
> 
> That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?

Why use the word “lies”.
If you think I'm wrong, use the word "errors".

R.H. 

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

#652605

On 2024-04-01 11:50:15 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 01/04/2024 à 10:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> 
>>> So we will have disagreed on everything.
>>> But it does not matter.
>> 
>> That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?
> 
> Why use the word “lies”.

Because I know as well you do what appears on French television. Please 
give a date channel and if you want anyone to believe that what you was 
not a liee.

> If you think I'm wrong, use the word "errors".

Not when they're deliberate.

-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#652634

On 4/1/2024 7:50 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 01/04/2024 à 10:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2024-03-31 21:13:58 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> 
>>> So we will have disagreed on everything.
>>> But it does not matter.
>>
>> That's the best excuse you have for posting a heap of lies?
> 
> Why use the word “lies”.
> If you think I'm wrong, use the word "errors".
> 
If it's deliberate, it's a lie. Since you ignore criticism of your 
"errors" I think they are deliberate, thus they are lies.

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

#652604

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-31 15:06:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> >
>> 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".
>
> I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I 
> have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know 
> for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about 
> relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.

This is a relativity discussion group, so I judge Hachel primarily on what
he says about relativity.  However, if I know he's lying about some other
subject, that would color my thinking, but not cause me to reject what he
says about relativity.

You, OTOH, seem to employ irrelevant issues to dismiss the main argument.
That, of course, is the easy way, but it's akin to attacking the messenger
rather than the message.  If you remember, you did that to me :-(

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

#652606

W dniu 01.04.2024 o 14:50, gharnagel pisze:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-03-31 15:06:43 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>> >
>>> 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".
>>
>> I watch French television every day. Even allowing for exaggeration I 
>> have never heard anything like that. That tells me all I need to know 
>> for assessing the likely accuracy of the things you say about 
>> relativity. That, and the reality of you supposed doctorate.
> 
> This is a relativity discussion group, so I judge Hachel primarily on what
> he says about relativity.  However, if I know he's lying about some other
> subject, that would color my thinking, but not cause me to reject what he
> says about relativity.


You, on the other hand - are lying only
about the subject of the relativity. At least
here.

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

#652633

On 3/31/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> 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.

It would take just one repeatable experiment to prove SR to be wrong. 
Including verification of some of your claims as they are inconsistent 
with SR.  So far this hasn't happened.
> 
> I think you still don't understand the human problem.
> 
> Look at what is happening today in Ukraine.

Ukraine has nothing to do with SR or your claims.

All I will say is that you are repeating russian propaganda here. 
Remember, the first casualty in any war is the truth. And russia always 
lies.

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

That's how science works. Come up with a hypothesis and provide evidence 
that it's valid. (actually come up with a disproof which invalidates it)
> 
> But you don't understand anything, Mac, you don't UNDERSTAND anything.

I understand how science works.
> 
> I gave cases of proof.

No you did not. You posted many claims which others has told you are 
wrong, and why they are wrong. You ignore them and repeat your claims. 
Also no such thing as proof in physics, only disproof.

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

#652637

W dniu 02.04.2024 o 17:21, Volney pisze:
> On 3/31/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> It would take just one repeatable experiment to prove SR to be wrong. 

Only such an idiot can believe such an
idiotic lie, stupid Mike.
And in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your insane religion
"improper" clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

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

#652609

Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
> 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.

Again? I have done it several times, but OK:

It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.

Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
in the Large Hadron Collider is  6927⋅c.

Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.

> 
> 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,  

Can you please explain how non-locality affects the predictions of SR?
Does it make any of the following confirmations of SR invalid?

https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

> 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.

Quite.
And we know that the impenetrable limit speed is c.

So why do you claim that the speed of protons can be 6927⋅c?

> I simply combine the two.

So if you combine non-locality and the principle that c is
an impenetrable limit speed, you find that the speed of
protons can be 6927⋅c ?

> 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?

Your falsified theory is obviously much better than
the theory that's never falsified.
Right? :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#652611

Le 01/04/2024 à 21:58, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> 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.
> 
> Again? I have done it several times, but OK:
> 
> It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
> in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.
> 
> Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
> in the Large Hadron Collider is  6927⋅c.
> 
> Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.
> 
>> 
>> 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,  
> 
> Can you please explain how non-locality affects the predictions of SR?
> Does it make any of the following confirmations of SR invalid?
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Quite.
> And we know that the impenetrable limit speed is c.
> 
> So why do you claim that the speed of protons can be 6927⋅c?
> 
>> I simply combine the two.
> 
> So if you combine non-locality and the principle that c is
> an impenetrable limit speed, you find that the speed of
> protons can be 6927⋅c ?
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Your falsified theory is obviously much better than
> the theory that's never falsified.
> Right? :-D

 Je ne prends pas la peine de répondre.

 Ca n'en vaut malheureusement pas la peine.

 R.H. 

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

#652626

Den 01.04.2024 22:03, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 01/04/2024 à 21:58, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Again? I have done it several times, but OK:
>>
>> It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
>> in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.
>>
>> Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
>> in the Large Hadron Collider is  6927⋅c.
>>
>> Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.
>>

> 
> Je ne prends pas la peine de répondre.
> 
> Ca n'en vaut malheureusement pas la peine.
> 
> R.H.

Does this mean that you have accepted that
your theory is falsified?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#652635

On 4/1/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 01/04/2024 à 21:58, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 31.03.2024 14:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

>>> 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?
>>
>> Your falsified theory is obviously much better than
>> the theory that's never falsified.
>> Right? :-D
> 
> Je ne prends pas la peine de répondre.
> 
> Ca n'en vaut malheureusement pas la peine.
> 
It's not nice to tell Paul to take a long walk off a short pier.

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

#652579

W dniu 31.03.2024 o 14:08, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

> Experience, but no experiment? :-D
> 
> SR is a consistent theory.

No it's not. Its inconsistency has been proven
here dosens of time.

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

#652614

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.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

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]

#652615

Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> 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.

Banjo Boy. you are *still* dumber than a mud fence... and Richard, you have never proven anything is wrong with relativity... nor has anyone else in the last 120 years or so...

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

#652616

On 04/01/2024 06:14 PM, palsing wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Banjo Boy. you are *still* dumber than a mud fence... and Richard, you
> have never proven anything is wrong with relativity... nor has anyone
> else in the last 120 years or so...

Einstein though sort of walked some things back,
"SR is local and the E-spacial", specifically.

That, and mass-energy equivalency sort of is governed
by GR not SR, and sort of is so about the rotational
and moments, and sort of independent the linear and Galilean.


The wider sky survey, after CMBR and the universe was flat,
and after 2MASS and the reshift was much less pronounced,
and definitely since JWST, has roundly paint-canned what
was the highly-tuned theory of inflationary cosmology.


Also again there's a sort of "Dirac's positronic,
Einstein's white-hole, magnetic micropole, vacuum sea".


So, SR and GR are still pretty great, but GR is in front now.

The "dark matter holding galaxies together" and "dark energy
spacing them apart" really is "the unseen which doesn't say much",
except that Parameterized Post-Newtonian is how the Earth's ephemeris
is modeled, and many modern theories like MOND better fit without
tuning the current, and thusly also historical, contents of
the sky survey.

So, Einstein sort of refined his theories, and into one theory,
to sort of protect himself from his own followers.

It's a continuum mechanics is why, or as Einstein put it,
it's sort of a total field theory of differential inertial-systems.

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

#652622

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.
It is not possible that the speed of light can be changed by the speed of 
the source because the speed of light in a frame of reference is measured 
with TWO watches, and the two watches that measure it are in the 
receiver's frame of reference .
This de facto makes the speed of the source completely useless to take 
into account to produce this speed.
On the other hand, if the speed of the source has no importance on the 
speed of the wave, it is important to know that it has an importance on 
the wavelength and the energy of the photon.

 λ'=λ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosα.Vo/c)   
 λ'=λ.(1-cosα'.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
 λ'=λ.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

 hυ'=hυ.(1+cosα.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
 hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1-cosα'.Vo/c)
 hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Thank you for listening.

R.H. 

-- 
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo: <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=yicmqV-LmSkUGZMrLIlAvr5aftM@jntp>

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

#652623

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.

It is obvious from the MM experiment that the speed of light changes with 
the speed of the emitter.
I found the bungle made of the analysis of the experiments back in 2005.
Basically, they ignored the fact that the equipment moves along with the 
Earth, as it is on the Earth.
That way, the distances travelled by the light in the two directions are 
the same, and so there is the null result. One can check out the detailed 
paper, will repost if necessary.
That the light speed changes is most obvious with the Doppler effect, 
where frequency changes with the velocity of the emitter.

Thus if c(V)=c+V
f = (c+V)/wavelength.
or f = c/wavelength + V/wavelength
or f(rest) + del f = c/wavelength + V/wavelength
which gives
del f = V/wavelength

See, when we have velocity of sound/light/water changing with the velocity 
of the emitter, then there is no need to twist up the wavelength which 
remains the same (as it has to, no way it can get twisted up, it only 
moves past faster or slower with more or less speed of the emitter).


When v is positive, we get higher f, as is evidenced.
When v is negative, we get lower f.
So most obviously the speed of light changes with that of the emitter of 
light.
Which throws out the first postulate of SR and so the whole thing comes 
crashing down.
As I have been pointing out since 2005.

> It is not possible that the speed of light can be changed by the speed of the 
> source because the speed of light in a frame of reference is measured with TWO 
> watches, and the two watches that measure it are in the receiver's frame of 
> reference .

Makes no sense, above. For such an important point, a lot of effort must 
be made to make sense.

The speed of light depends upon the quality of the medium, and that is 
found from the electromagnetic travelling wave formulations, depending 
upon magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity.  That the values 
from there matched with experimental results is one of the greatest 
triumphs of theoretical and experimental physics.  After that, the reality 
of electromagnetic waves became known, and put to practical use.

Light is kinetic in quality, just like throwing an object from a moving 
platform. Wave motion is an essentially kinetic exercise. Just look at the 
water wave. When a duck flaps the still water, the waves move faster in 
the direction of the force applied. For the source pushes the medium there 
with extra velocity.

> This de facto makes the speed of the source completely useless to take into 
> account to produce this speed.

Again, this makes no sense.
The speed of the source relates to frequency shift, so we can find how 
fast objects are moving.

> On the other hand, if the speed of the source has no importance on the speed of 
> the wave, 

Which is wrong, of course, see above.  
The speed of the source increases or decreases the speed of the wave.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

it is important to know that it has an importance on the wavelength and 
the energy of the photon.
> 
>  λ'=λ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosα.Vo/c)   
>  λ'=λ.(1-cosα'.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>  λ'=λ.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
> 
>  hυ'=hυ.(1+cosα.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>  hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1-cosα'.Vo/c)
>  hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
> 
> Thank you for listening.
> 
> R.H. 

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

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

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

csiph-web