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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614924 > unrolled thread

Doctor Hachel's equation

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

Contents

  Doctor Hachel's equation Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 17:42 +0000
    Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 11:44 -0700
      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 19:19 +0000
    Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 20:53 +0200
      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 19:33 +0000
        Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 07:27 +0200
    Re: Doctor Hachel's equation "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-07-11 12:27 +0200
      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 10:53 +0000
      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 15:12 +0200
      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 23:13 +0000
        Re: Doctor Hachel's equation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 20:33 -0700
          Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 10:00 +0000
            Re: Doctor Hachel's equation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 14:05 -0700
              Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Dillan Vassilikos <lisa@osidsadl.ss> - 2023-07-12 21:58 +0000
                Re: Doctor Hachel's equation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 19:43 -0700
                  Re: Doctor Hachel's equation whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-12 21:50 -0500
                    Re: Doctor Hachel's equation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 21:13 -0700
                      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 00:45 -0500
                  Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Dann Anetakis <data@anasnnks.na> - 2023-07-13 14:13 +0000
                    Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-13 11:26 -0400
                      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Faustino Patrianakos <rrta@taroritt.ak> - 2023-07-13 16:30 +0000
                      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 12:03 -0500
                    Re: Doctor Hachel's equation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:13 -0700
                      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Pascal Karameros <spar@easrsslc.rr> - 2023-07-14 09:48 +0000
                        Re: Doctor Hachel's equation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 15:11 -0700
                          Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Natalio Frangopoulos <lllf@fptaartr.lu> - 2023-07-14 23:45 +0000
                            Re: Doctor Hachel's equation whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 20:20 -0500
                              Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Random Manos <aaon@rmaddaon.no> - 2023-07-15 01:47 +0000
                                Re: Doctor Hachel's equation whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 20:55 -0500
                                  Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Bondie Ruvelas <isrs@llievbsd.ei> - 2023-07-15 02:18 +0000
                            Re: Doctor Hachel's equation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 19:39 -0700
                              Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Dickie Christou <krio@ekirtioo.ci> - 2023-07-15 19:46 +0000
                        Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 18:35 -0400
                          Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Wade Tsangaris <waas@raaeetir.ss> - 2023-07-14 23:34 +0000
                  Re: Doctor Hachel's equation RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-14 11:59 -0700
    Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 11:24 +0000
      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 11:55 +0000
      Re: Doctor Hachel's equation Duston Christakos <ouch@kthttcnn.sd> - 2023-07-11 12:32 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#614924 — Doctor Hachel's equation

Doctor Hachel proposed new concepts concerning the theory of relativity, 
and new equations.
We then find ourselves, face to face, with two slightly different 
theories, where things are not explained in the same way.
On many points, the equations are the same.
But not on others...
I would like your opinion on this one:
An object moves in the terrestrial reference frame, at a relativistic 
speed v. The direction of the object makes an angle µ with the line of 
sight.

An electromagnetic wave is emitted E=hv.

According to Dr. Hachel, the perceived electromagnetic frequency will be 
relative, and the equation giving the correspondence between the original 
frequency and the perceived frequency would be this:
hv'=hv.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rqLL7yCDU9buvOhF2G5m-CdDoUw@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Is this equation correct?

Can it be used in a possible relativistic physics exam?

Thank you for your answers.

R.H. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#614931

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> An object moves in the terrestrial reference frame, at a relativistic 
> speed v. The direction of the object makes an angle µ with the line of 
> sight.  An electromagnetic wave is emitted E=hv.  The perceived frequency 
> would be this:   f' = f.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c) 
> Is this equation correct? 

That's just the standard equation for the relativistic Doppler effect from "Introduction to Relativity 101".  Some time ago you were confused, because you mixed up the angle in terms of the emitter's coordinates with the angle in terms of the receiver's coordinates, without taking aberration into account.  When this was explained to you, you strongly denied it for about a week... and then eventually agreed that what had been explained to you was actually correct.  So, it's excellent that you have learned this simple equation.  Bravo.

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

#614938

Le 10/07/2023 à 20:44, Bill a écrit :
> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> An object moves in the terrestrial reference frame, at a relativistic 
>> speed v. The direction of the object makes an angle µ with the line of 
>> sight.  An electromagnetic wave is emitted E=hv.  The perceived frequency 
>> would be this:   f' = f.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c) 
>> Is this equation correct? 
> 
> That's just the standard equation for the relativistic Doppler effect from 
> "Introduction to Relativity 101".  Some time ago you were confused, because you 
> mixed up the angle in terms of the emitter's coordinates with the angle in terms 
> of the receiver's coordinates, without taking aberration into account.  When this 
> was explained to you, you strongly denied it for about a week... and then 
> eventually agreed that what had been explained to you was actually correct.  So, 
> it's excellent that you have learned this simple equation.  Bravo.

Note, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Do not confuse the angle α in R,
which will directly give us the angle α' in R', and from there, the angle 
µ in R' (µ=π-α')
I'll write, if I'm not dead before, given the insults and threats, a small 
pdf on it. Very simple and very instructive.
If you are in love with relativistic science, you will like it very much.

R.H. 

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

#614934

On 2023-07-10 17:42:13 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:

> Doctor Hachel proposed new concepts concerning the theory of 
> relativity, and new equations.

OK, but you still haven't explained what you did to get the title of Doctor.

> We then find ourselves, face to face, with two slightly different 
> theories, where things are not explained in the same way.
> On many points, the equations are the same.
> But not on others...
> I would like your opinion on this one:
> An object moves in the terrestrial reference frame, at a relativistic 
> speed v. The direction of the object makes an angle µ with the line of 
> sight.
> 
> An electromagnetic wave is emitted E=hv.
> 
> According to Dr. Hachel, the perceived electromagnetic frequency will 
> be relative, and the equation giving the correspondence between the 
> original frequency and the perceived frequency would be this:
> hv'=hv.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rqLL7yCDU9buvOhF2G5m-CdDoUw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> 
> Is this equation correct?
> 
> Can it be used in a possible relativistic physics exam?
> 
> Thank you for your answers.
> 
> R.H.


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

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

#614939

Le 10/07/2023 à 20:53, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

>> According to Dr. Hachel, the perceived electromagnetic frequency will 
>> be relative, and the equation giving the correspondence between the 
>> original frequency and the perceived frequency would be this:
>> hv'=hv.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>> 
>> 
>> Is this equation correct?
>> 
>> Can it be used in a possible relativistic physics exam?

 Attention aux erreurs de signes ou d'angles (α,α',μ).

 <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uwGv_jETTfhRy7OS6S1oqGv0lSk@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uwGv_jETTfhRy7OS6S1oqGv0lSk@jntp/Data.Media:2>

 R.H. 

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

#614973

On 2023-07-10 19:33:39 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:

> Le 10/07/2023 à 20:53, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

Athel Cornish-Bowden n'a écrit rien de ceci :
> 
>>> According to Dr. Hachel, the perceived electromagnetic frequency will 
>>> be relative, and the equation giving the correspondence between the 
>>> original frequency and the perceived frequency would be this:
>>> hv'=hv.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is this equation correct?
>>> 
>>> Can it be used in a possible relativistic physics exam?
> 
>  Attention aux erreurs de signes ou d'angles (α,α',μ).
> 
>  <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uwGv_jETTfhRy7OS6S1oqGv0lSk@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uwGv_jETTfhRy7OS6S1oqGv0lSk@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> 
>  R.H.


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

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

#614981

Den 10.07.2023 19:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
> 
> According to Dr. Hachel, the perceived electromagnetic frequency will be 
> relative, and the equation giving the correspondence between the 
> original frequency and the perceived frequency would be this:
> hv'=hv.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rqLL7yCDU9buvOhF2G5m-CdDoUw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> 
> Is this equation correct?
> 
Why does a "Doctor" have to ask such an elementary question?

https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf

https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
  §7

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#614984

Le 11/07/2023 à 12:27, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 10.07.2023 19:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> 
>> According to Dr. Hachel, the perceived electromagnetic frequency will be 
>> relative, and the equation giving the correspondence between the 
>> original frequency and the perceived frequency would be this:
>> hv'=hv.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)

> https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf


Many thanks for these two pdfs of obvious interest.
I will re-read this carefully, especially yours.
I would like to write something in that style, and in French, and submit 
it to you for your supervision. I think it's important to have your 
personal opinion, and possibly your intellectual agreement on the things I 
might write about it.

R.H. 

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

#614989

On 2023-07-11 10:27:14 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said:

> Den 10.07.2023 19:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> 
>> According to Dr. Hachel, the perceived electromagnetic frequency will 
>> be relative, and the equation giving the correspondence between the 
>> original frequency and the perceived frequency would be this:
>> hv'=hv.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>> 
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rqLL7yCDU9buvOhF2G5m-CdDoUw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>> 
>> Is this equation correct?
>> 
> Why does a "Doctor" have to ask such an elementary question?

Because his "doctorate" is fictitious.
> 
> https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
>   §7


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

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

#615032

Le 11/07/2023 à 12:27, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf

 Very very good pdf with correct equations.

 But I don't understand the complexity of the process.

I'm doing much, much, much simpler than this stuff of vectors, composites, 
etc...

We don't need all that!!!

Would you be interested in co-signing with me a small pdf of the same 
style but written and conceptualized much more simply?

R.H. 

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

#615041

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 4:13:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/07/2023 à 12:27, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> > https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf 
> 
> Very very good pdf with correct equations. 
> 
> But I don't understand the complexity of the process. 
> 
> I'm doing much, much, much simpler than this stuff of vectors, composites, 
> etc... 
> 
> We don't need all that!!! 

Yes, we do. I mean you can simplify Paul's text a bit but not in any
way that counts much. Einstein did the same derivation for his 1905
paper except he did not include it, he just published the end result.

Bottom line is you need to use phase invariance of plane waves and
the Lorentz transformation. The rest is just a question of doodling with
some algebra.

--
Jan

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

#615064

Le 12/07/2023 à 05:33, JanPB a écrit :
> Yes, we do. I mean you can simplify Paul's text a bit but not in any
> way that counts much. Einstein did the same derivation for his 1905
> paper except he did not include it, he just published the end result.
> 
> Bottom line is you need to use phase invariance of plane waves and
> the Lorentz transformation. The rest is just a question of doodling with
> some algebra.

No, we don't need any of that.

R.H. 

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

#615097

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:00:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 12/07/2023 à 05:33, JanPB a écrit : 
> > Yes, we do. I mean you can simplify Paul's text a bit but not in any 
> > way that counts much. Einstein did the same derivation for his 1905 
> > paper except he did not include it, he just published the end result. 
> > 
> > Bottom line is you need to use phase invariance of plane waves and 
> > the Lorentz transformation. The rest is just a question of doodling with 
> > some algebra.
> No, we don't need any of that. 

You do.

--
Jan

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

#615098

JanPB wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:00:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 12/07/2023 à 05:33, JanPB a écrit :
>> > Bottom line is you need to use phase invariance of plane waves and
>> > the Lorentz transformation. The rest is just a question of doodling
>> > with some algebra.
>> No, we don't need any of that.
> 
> You do.

you are correct. But it's too late to undrestand why it isn't done sooner.
 
*_Russia_mulls_plan_to_display_destroyed_NATO_hardware_outside_embassies_*
The idea is being considered by parliament and the Defense Ministry 
https://%72t.com/ru%73%73ia/579609-destroyed-nato-hardware-display/

you polakers are going to suck dicks on the face of the earth. And will be 
remembered.

Drop them onto the embassies. I am from the US and I am in full support of 
this form of shaming

bring them also the found us-ukraine *_bio_weapon_labs_* in their nearest 
proximity. Tell them the bio_weaponry *_are_ethnicity_targeted_*.

What a GREAT IDEA to SHOW the RUSSIAN PEOPLE ... To SHOW what Countries 
are TRYING to DESTROY RUSSIA

bring there also, the delivered criminal uk and us *_depleted_uranium_*, 
and the *_cluster_bombs_weaponry_*.

Reminds the Russian population who they are REALLY fighting and how 
inferior NATOstan is

Zelensky is a Mass Murderer...NATO is supporting him...Counterpunch his 
Psychopath's, and hit them, before they even fire a shot!...This is not a 
pissing match.

It is a great idea - people over here (UK) mostly don't realise the truth 
about Ukraine - including which side is winning. Showing them how their 
hard earned taxes end up would be very helpful.

The purpose of these displays would be to shame those countries. The 
problem with Western people is that the conscience was long ago burned. 
They are not capable of feeling shame. It’s why they can kill children and 
then sleep like babies. They can even kill their own children, and say 
it’s planned parenthood, not murder.

Just go medieval, display the heads of mercs KIA on sticks in front of the 
their respective embassies. If you want plausible deniability... you can 
find loads of disgruntled westerners who hate their own governments who 
might do the dirty part for ya

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

#615121

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:59:02 PM UTC-7, Dillan Vassilikos wrote:
> JanPB wrote: 
> 
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:00:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> >> Le 12/07/2023 à 05:33, JanPB a écrit : 
> >> > Bottom line is you need to use phase invariance of plane waves and 
> >> > the Lorentz transformation. The rest is just a question of doodling 
> >> > with some algebra. 
> >> No, we don't need any of that. 
> > 
> > You do.
> you are correct. But it's too late to undrestand why it isn't done sooner. 
> 
> *_Russia_mulls_plan_to_display_destroyed_NATO_hardware_outside_embassies_* 

Russia is a failed state.

--
Jan

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

#615122

On 7/12/2023 9:43 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:59:02 PM UTC-7, Dillan Vassilikos wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:00:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 12/07/2023 à 05:33, JanPB a écrit :
>>>>> Bottom line is you need to use phase invariance of plane waves and
>>>>> the Lorentz transformation. The rest is just a question of doodling
>>>>> with some algebra.
>>>> No, we don't need any of that.
>>>
>>> You do.
>> you are correct. But it's too late to undrestand why it isn't done sooner.
>>
>> *_Russia_mulls_plan_to_display_destroyed_NATO_hardware_outside_embassies_*
> 
> Russia is a failed state.

The problem is that it keeps failing. You'd think that by now they
would acquire a leadership that would prevent repetition. But no.

Conclusion: They actually like failure.

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

#615133

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:50:42 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/12/2023 9:43 PM, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:59:02 PM UTC-7, Dillan Vassilikos wrote: 
> >> JanPB wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:00:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> >>>> Le 12/07/2023 à 05:33, JanPB a écrit : 
> >>>>> Bottom line is you need to use phase invariance of plane waves and 
> >>>>> the Lorentz transformation. The rest is just a question of doodling 
> >>>>> with some algebra. 
> >>>> No, we don't need any of that. 
> >>> 
> >>> You do. 
> >> you are correct. But it's too late to undrestand why it isn't done sooner. 
> >> 
> >> *_Russia_mulls_plan_to_display_destroyed_NATO_hardware_outside_embassies_* 
> > 
> > Russia is a failed state.
> The problem is that it keeps failing. You'd think that by now they 
> would acquire a leadership that would prevent repetition. But no. 
> 
> Conclusion: They actually like failure.

It's complicated. Russia for centuries wanted to be like the West but
they stubbornly refuse to do the work necessary to achieve this. Their
biggest problem is that their physical size happens to be very large and
this accident of geography has tricked them into a major imperium-complex.
This is the root cause of all their woes. They are really a small country but
stuck with a large territory which doesn't match their abilities or mentality.
It's like a teenager that grows way too tall and ends up with health problems.

--
Jan

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

#615140

On 7/12/2023 11:13 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:50:42 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 7/12/2023 9:43 PM, JanPB wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:59:02 PM UTC-7, Dillan Vassilikos wrote:
>>>> JanPB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:00:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> Le 12/07/2023 à 05:33, JanPB a écrit :
>>>>>>> Bottom line is you need to use phase invariance of plane waves and
>>>>>>> the Lorentz transformation. The rest is just a question of doodling
>>>>>>> with some algebra.
>>>>>> No, we don't need any of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do.
>>>> you are correct. But it's too late to undrestand why it isn't done sooner.
>>>>
>>>> *_Russia_mulls_plan_to_display_destroyed_NATO_hardware_outside_embassies_*
>>>
>>> Russia is a failed state.

>> The problem is that it keeps failing. You'd think that by now they
>> would acquire a leadership that would prevent repetition. But no.
>>
>> Conclusion: They actually like failure.
> 
> It's complicated. Russia for centuries wanted to be like the West but
> they stubbornly refuse to do the work necessary to achieve this. Their
> biggest problem is that their physical size happens to be very large and
> this accident of geography has tricked them into a major imperium-complex.

> This is the root cause of all their woes. They are really a small country but
> stuck with a large territory which doesn't match their abilities or mentality.
> It's like a teenager that grows way too tall and ends up with health problems.

While I appreciate your analysis I disagree with most of it.

I did have a lot more to say but that doesn't really belong in
a physics Newsgroup.

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

#615153

JanPB wrote:

>> >> No, we don't need any of that.
>> > 
>> > You do.
>> you are correct. But it's too late to undrestand why it isn't done
>> sooner.
>> 
>>*_Russia_mulls_plan_to_display_destroyed_NATO_hardware_outside_embassies_*
> 
> Russia is a failed state.

*_Federation_*, not "state". Can't you read maps, look on a map, and map 
in square kilometres.

meanwhile polakia is not even a state, but a *_Russian_province_*. Litaun, 
Letoan, Estonia same thing: *_Russian_provinces_*. Chekoslovakia, 
"ukraine" similarly. You talk the same language. Talk correct Russian, 
fucking stupid, because you are not fooling anyone.

the Yugoslavia is hardly a Russian province anymore, the *_turk_traitors_* 
took over and destroyed that region long ago.

https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/files/2023.07/l/64af16ed85f5405704503746.jpg

This photo of Zelensky has become the "meme" that perfectly defines the 
dangers of small man syndrome now sweeping the planet ?

this motherfucker khazar goy gay actor was really thinking he was a 
"president". That's what happen *_starting_believe_own_propaganda_*.

Nato has lost the 'information' war.. no one wants a pic with a nazi

He looks like the hired help at a banquet *_of_rich_white_people_*, oh 
wait, he is. He doesn't even see that they treat him like a prop.

Welcome to the realization of the true Ukrainian character. Haughty, 
proclivity for criminality, but above all; lowbrow and repulsive.

The photo that perfectly sums up NATO's position with regards to this 
phoney little phag

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

#615158

On 7/13/2023 10:13 AM, Dann Anetakis wrote:
> JanPB wrote:

>> Russia is a failed state.
> 
> *_Federation_*, not "state". Can't you read maps, look on a map, and map
> in square kilometres.

OK, so Russia is a failed federation of failed states.

Picky picky.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web