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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616045 > unrolled thread

The greatest baby step

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

Contents

  The greatest baby step   Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-25 18:23 +0000
    Re: The greatest baby step Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 20:45 +0200
      Re: The greatest baby step Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-25 19:28 +0000
        Re: The greatest baby step Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 22:08 +0200
          Re: The greatest baby step Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-25 20:41 +0000
          Re: The greatest baby step Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 08:11 -0700
            Re: The greatest baby step Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-26 15:57 +0000
            Re: The greatest baby step Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 18:19 +0200
              Re: The greatest baby step Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 22:03 -0700
            Re: The greatest baby step Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-26 13:39 -0400
              Re: The greatest baby step Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 22:03 -0700
                Re: The greatest baby step Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 01:16 -0400
                  Re: The greatest baby step Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 23:06 -0700
            Re: The greatest baby step whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-26 16:57 -0500
              Re: The greatest baby step Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 20:00 -0700
                Re: The greatest baby step whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-27 00:05 -0500
                  Re: The greatest baby step Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 08:09 -0700
              Re: The greatest baby step Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-27 09:33 +0000
    Re: The greatest baby step   Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-25 19:32 +0000
    Re: The greatest baby step   Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-26 16:00 +0000
      Re: The greatest baby step Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 09:19 -0700
      Re: The greatest baby step Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 18:23 +0200
        Re: The greatest baby step Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-26 16:38 +0000
          Re: The greatest baby step Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 11:06 -0700
            Re: The greatest baby step Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 20:33 +0200
              Re: The greatest baby step Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-26 19:11 +0000
                Re: The greatest baby step Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 08:59 +0200
              Re: The greatest baby step Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 16:00 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#616045 — The greatest baby step

You have to take baby steps.

We are therefore going to ask those here who do not believe in the notion 
of the relativity of time, to please consider these two diagrams.

On the first diagram, the train is in its frame of reference, the wagon is 
stationary on the track, or the track is moving under it.

  A ray of light is then sent to the ceiling of the wagon, and the time 
required is noted. To=d/c.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:1>

We then place ourselves in the reference frame of the route, and we note 
the time To' necessary between A and B.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:2>

We consider that Δx=Vo.To'

In three lines, we must be able to give the equation which links To in R, 
and To' in R'.

Note that time is relative.

I ask Maciej to study this simple little problem, and to consider that 
time is relative, and that the equation that links To and To" is easily 
discoverable.

For others, who already know the answer, like Paul B. Andersen, it is 
obviously not necessary to intervene.

R.H. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#616047

On 2023-07-25 18:23:14 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:

> You have to take baby steps.

Try to get it in your head, little man, that you are not any sort of 
expert on this subject. Nobody is going to waste time following your 
course.
> 
> We are therefore going to ask those here who do not believe in the 
> notion of the relativity of time, to please consider these two diagrams.
> 
> On the first diagram, the train is in its frame of reference, the wagon 
> is stationary on the track, or the track is moving under it.
> 
>   A ray of light is then sent to the ceiling of the wagon, and the time 
> required is noted. To=d/c.
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> 
> We then place ourselves in the reference frame of the route, and we 
> note the time To' necessary between A and B.
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> 
> We consider that Δx=Vo.To'
> 
> In three lines, we must be able to give the equation which links To in 
> R, and To' in R'.
> 
> Note that time is relative.
> 
> I ask Maciej to study this simple little problem, and to consider that 
> time is relative, and that the equation that links To and To" is easily 
> discoverable.
> 
> For others, who already know the answer, like Paul B. Andersen, it is 
> obviously not necessary to intervene.
> 
> R.H.


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

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

#616051

Le 25/07/2023 à 20:45, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

> On 2023-07-25 18:23:14 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:
> 
>> You have to take baby steps.
> 
> Try to get it in your head, little man, that you are not any sort of 
> expert on this subject. Nobody is going to waste time following your 
> course.

>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:1>

>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:2>

 Si c'était aussi évident que le docteur Hachel est un crétin, vous 
n'auriez pas besoin de le dire.

R.H. 
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=brGVrNVPkigMNGrSc_pCYeaixfI@jntp>

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

#616058

On 2023-07-25 19:28:55 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 25/07/2023 à 20:45, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> 
>> On 2023-07-25 18:23:14 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:
>> 
>>> You have to take baby steps.
>> 
>> Try to get it in your head, little man, that you are not any sort of 
>> expert on this subject. Nobody is going to waste time following your 
>> course.
> 
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> 
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:2>

Chrome tells me that those URLs are dangerous. I didn't risk it.
> 
>  Si c'était aussi évident que le docteur Hachel est un crétin, vous 
> n'auriez pas besoin de le dire.

I didn't say that "Doctor" Hachel was a cretin; I said he wasn't an expert.
> 
> R.H. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=brGVrNVPkigMNGrSc_pCYeaixfI@jntp>


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

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

#616059

Le 25/07/2023 à 22:08, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-07-25 19:28:55 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> 
>> Le 25/07/2023 à 20:45, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> 
>>> On 2023-07-25 18:23:14 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:
>>> 
>>>> You have to take baby steps.
>>> 
>>> Try to get it in your head, little man, that you are not any sort of 
>>> expert on this subject. Nobody is going to waste time following your 
>>> course.
>> 
>>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>> 
>>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> 
> Chrome tells me that those URLs are dangerous. I didn't risk it.
>> 
>>  Si c'était aussi évident que le docteur Hachel est un crétin, vous 
>> n'auriez pas besoin de le dire.
> 
> I didn't say that "Doctor" Hachel was a cretin; I said he wasn't an expert.
>> 
>> R.H. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=brGVrNVPkigMNGrSc_pCYeaixfI@jntp>

You are right, it was a trap.

If you had clicked on the link, the little wagon I drew would have dropped 
a thermo-nuclear bomb into your hard disk.

That still represents 10 megatons.

It is very dangerous up to 60 kilometers around.

R.H. 

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

#616092

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> I didn't say that "Doctor" Hachel was a cretin; I said he wasn't an expert. 

I've noticed an interesting asymmetry in application of the 
various rules-of-thumb whereby I distinguish between crackpots,
reliable posters, and bona fide experts.

As a general rule-of-thumb, those who proclaim loudest their
expertise generally are not expert at all. 

The asymmetry in the rule-of-thumb is that the converse is
not true: people who make a point of telling people that 
they are not expert *also* are not expert. Case in point would
be myself. I tell people that I am not expert, and it is pretty
clear to me that I am not.

So how do you figure who is a bona fide expert?

:-)

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

#616093

Le 26/07/2023 à 17:11, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog a écrit :
> I've noticed an interesting asymmetry in application of the 
> various rules-of-thumb whereby I distinguish between crackpots,
> reliable posters, and bona fide experts.
> 
> As a general rule-of-thumb, those who proclaim loudest their
> expertise generally are not expert at all. 
> 
> The asymmetry in the rule-of-thumb is that the converse is
> not true: people who make a point of telling people that 
> they are not expert *also* are not expert. Case in point would
> be myself. I tell people that I am not expert, and it is pretty
> clear to me that I am not.
> 
> So how do you figure who is a bona fide expert?
> 
> :-)

This is the huge question.

However, I already answered here a few days ago with the parable of oil 
and water.

When you don't know, you have to test.

If we don't know if it's oil or water, it's simple, we put the liquid in 
water, we shake and we see what happens.

If it's oil, it'll come to the surface quickly, and you'll see it's oil.

With people who post, it's the same.

It is necessary to look for two things: 1. do they have certain knowledge? 
(it is quickly seen if what they say is incoherent, I do not say strange, 
because the truths are often astonishing, but frankly incoherent). 2. If 
you still don't know, you have to look for what they say elsewhere, in 
politics, criminology, sociology, theology, and see if it's at a very good 
level, or if it's rubbish. whatever. Someone who sucks sucks everywhere.

This is how it should be done.

R.H. 

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

#616095

On 2023-07-26 15:11:49 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> 
>> I didn't say that "Doctor" Hachel was a cretin; I said he wasn't an expert.
> I've noticed an interesting asymmetry in application of thevarious 
> rules-of-thumb whereby I distinguish between crackpots,
> reliable posters, and bona fide experts.
> 
> As a general rule-of-thumb, those who proclaim loudest their
> expertise generally are not expert at all.
> The asymmetry in the rule-of-thumb is that the converse is
> not true: people who make a point of telling people thatthey are not 
> expert *also* are not expert.

My signature (if I remember to put the right one) tells you that I make 
no claim to be an expert on physics.

>  Case in point would
> be myself. I tell people that I am not expert, and it is pretty
> clear to me that I am not.
> 
> So how do you figure who is a bona fide expert?
> 
> :-)


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

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

#616123

On Wednesday, 26 July 2023 at 18:19:17 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-07-26 15:11:49 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said: 
> 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> > 
> >> I didn't say that "Doctor" Hachel was a cretin; I said he wasn't an expert. 
> > I've noticed an interesting asymmetry in application of thevarious 
> > rules-of-thumb whereby I distinguish between crackpots, 
> > reliable posters, and bona fide experts. 
> > 
> > As a general rule-of-thumb, those who proclaim loudest their 
> > expertise generally are not expert at all. 
> > The asymmetry in the rule-of-thumb is that the converse is
> > not true: people who make a point of telling people thatthey are not
> > expert *also* are not expert.
> My signature (if I remember to put the right one) tells you that I make 
> no claim to be an expert on physics.

Oh, that's good, Athel, becausa apart of detecting cranks,
i.e. screaming "You're a crank!!!" - you're unable to pretty
anything.

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

#616100

On 7/26/2023 11:11 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> 
>> I didn't say that "Doctor" Hachel was a cretin; I said he wasn't an expert.
> 
> I've noticed an interesting asymmetry in application of the
> various rules-of-thumb whereby I distinguish between crackpots,
> reliable posters, and bona fide experts.
> 
> As a general rule-of-thumb, those who proclaim loudest their
> expertise generally are not expert at all.
> 
> The asymmetry in the rule-of-thumb is that the converse is
> not true: people who make a point of telling people that
> they are not expert *also* are not expert. Case in point would
> be myself. I tell people that I am not expert, and it is pretty
> clear to me that I am not.
> 
> So how do you figure who is a bona fide expert?

You are likely seeing the Dunning-Kruger Effect here.

If you plot one's actual knowledge on the x axis and their proclaimed 
knowledge on the y axis, you'll get a largish y value for x near 0, 
which are low-knowledge people proclaiming their expertise. The curve 
goes down to low values and then increases as the actual knowledge (x 
value) increases. But even that is not completely so since many (most) 
true experts don't go around boasting about it so the right side may not 
be a large increase in the proclaimed knowledge.

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

#616124

On Wednesday, 26 July 2023 at 19:39:58 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/26/2023 11:11 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> > 
> >> I didn't say that "Doctor" Hachel was a cretin; I said he wasn't an expert. 
> > 
> > I've noticed an interesting asymmetry in application of the 
> > various rules-of-thumb whereby I distinguish between crackpots, 
> > reliable posters, and bona fide experts. 
> > 
> > As a general rule-of-thumb, those who proclaim loudest their 
> > expertise generally are not expert at all. 
> > 
> > The asymmetry in the rule-of-thumb is that the converse is 
> > not true: people who make a point of telling people that 
> > they are not expert *also* are not expert. Case in point would 
> > be myself. I tell people that I am not expert, and it is pretty 
> > clear to me that I am not. 
> > 
> > So how do you figure who is a bona fide expert?
> You are likely seeing the Dunning-Kruger Effect here. 


And do you still believe that  9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, 
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

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

#616182

On 7/27/2023 1:03 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 July 2023 at 19:39:58 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/26/2023 11:11 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
[]

>>> So how do you figure who is a bona fide expert?

>> You are likely seeing the Dunning-Kruger Effect here.
> 
> 
> And do you still believe that  9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy

This is almost like summoning a demon by mentioning its name. I mention 
the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome and look who shows up? The poster boy of the 
Dunning-Kruger Syndrome support group, Maciej Wozniak himself!

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

#616187

On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 07:16:04 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/27/2023 1:03 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, 26 July 2023 at 19:39:58 UTC+2, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 7/26/2023 11:11 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> []
> >>> So how do you figure who is a bona fide expert? 
> 
> >> You are likely seeing the Dunning-Kruger Effect here. 
> > 
> > 
> > And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
> This is almost like summoning a demon by mentioning its name. I mention 


And do you still believe that  9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, 
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

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

#616114

On 7/26/2023 10:11 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> 
>> I didn't say that "Doctor" Hachel was a cretin; I said he wasn't an expert.
> 
> I've noticed an interesting asymmetry in application of the
> various rules-of-thumb whereby I distinguish between crackpots,
> reliable posters, and bona fide experts.
> 
> As a general rule-of-thumb, those who proclaim loudest their
> expertise generally are not expert at all.
> 
> The asymmetry in the rule-of-thumb is that the converse is
> not true: people who make a point of telling people that
> they are not expert *also* are not expert. Case in point would
> be myself. I tell people that I am not expert, and it is pretty
> clear to me that I am not.
> 
> So how do you figure who is a bona fide expert?
> 
> :-)

It is posited ideas that matter, not persons.

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

#616121

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:57:51 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:

> It is posited ideas that matter, not persons.

One of my Wikipedia acquaintances is an anti-Einstein
crackpot who, at the same time, is quite competent in
the theories that he claims Einstein stole whole-heartedly
from Poincare, Lorentz, Minkowski, etc. He's written a 
book bashing Einstein, and maintains a blog where he
constantly rants against Einstein, evolution, how the
U.S. is being overrun by non-white minorities, transgender
people, atheists, Jews, Chinese, the teaching of foreign
languages in school, etc.

Nevertheless, when he posts a technical correction to
a physics article in Wikipedia, he generally knows what
he is writing about. He contributions to physics history,
however, always bear close watching.

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

#616125

On 7/26/2023 10:00 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:57:51 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
> 
>> It is posited ideas that matter, not persons.
> 
> One of my Wikipedia acquaintances is an anti-Einstein
> crackpot who, at the same time, is quite competent in
> the theories that he claims Einstein stole whole-heartedly
> from Poincare, Lorentz, Minkowski, etc. He's written a
> book bashing Einstein, and maintains a blog where he
> constantly rants against Einstein, evolution, how the
> U.S. is being overrun by non-white minorities, transgender
> people, atheists, Jews, Chinese, the teaching of foreign
> languages in school, etc.
> 
> Nevertheless, when he posts a technical correction to
> a physics article in Wikipedia, he generally knows what
> he is writing about. He contributions to physics history,
> however, always bear close watching.

And still, your emphasis above is on the ideas. It
seems to me that the ideas stand for themselves and
your interest in the person is secondary if that
actually has any significance.

Consider please that relativity as a concept is still
important today whether any person is pro or con. And
Einstein as well as any others who had a hand in
creating the concept(s) are long dead, still the
ideas live on and continue to be fought over. The
originator(s) are unimportant and frankly always
were. The same thing is true of those generating
input today. I post as "whodat" because who I am
is of no consequence, my ideas/words should speak
for themselves and for very much the same reason I
have not "outed" Jane/Laurence. We spar, but AFAIC
that is a matter of dissenting ideas, not dissenting
people regardless of how difficult isolating people
from their ideas may be from time to time.

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

#616137

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
> On 7/26/2023 10:00 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: 

> > Nevertheless, when he posts a technical correction to 
> > a physics article in Wikipedia, he generally knows what 
> > he is writing about. He contributions to physics history, 
> > however, always bear close watching.
> And still, your emphasis above is on the ideas. It 
> seems to me that the ideas stand for themselves and 
> your interest in the person is secondary if that 
> actually has any significance. 

Precisely.

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

#616129

Le 26/07/2023 à 23:57, whodat a écrit :
> On 7/26/2023 10:11 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> 
>>> I didn't say that "Doctor" Hachel was a cretin; I said he wasn't an expert.
>> 
>> I've noticed an interesting asymmetry in application of the
>> various rules-of-thumb whereby I distinguish between crackpots,
>> reliable posters, and bona fide experts.
>> 
>> As a general rule-of-thumb, those who proclaim loudest their
>> expertise generally are not expert at all.
>> 
>> The asymmetry in the rule-of-thumb is that the converse is
>> not true: people who make a point of telling people that
>> they are not expert *also* are not expert. Case in point would
>> be myself. I tell people that I am not expert, and it is pretty
>> clear to me that I am not.
>> 
>> So how do you figure who is a bona fide expert?
>> 
>> :-)
> 
> It is posited ideas that matter, not persons.

The two greatest thinkers of the theory of relativity are, for me, French.
Henri Poincare and Richard Hachel.
You have to pay attention to what they say.
The problem is solved by Jesus Christ:
"You, you are like the Jews, when you love a tree, you spit on its fruit; 
when you love fruit, you spit on the tree". Gospel according to Thomas. 
Nag Hammadi text.

Here, we say we like the theory, but we spit on the two men.
Everything Poincaré said is attributed to Einstein. A university 
professor even managed the extraordinary feat of writing a book on the 
history of the special theory of relativity, quoting some fifty scholars, 
but without ever quoting Poincaré once, even in alinea, below of pages. 
This may seem absurd or misleading. It's the truth.

Many have pointed out that Poincaré's omissions can only be voluntary 
(like Einstein's Nobel, which they wanted to attribute to his writing on 
the dynamics of the electron, a copy of a text by Poincaré).

Same with Hachel, we don't attack what he says: we attack the man. It's 
particularly stupid.

R.H. 

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

#616053

Le 25/07/2023 à 20:23, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> You have to take baby steps.
> 
> We are therefore going to ask those here who do not believe in the notion of the 
> relativity of time, to please consider these two diagrams.
> 
> On the first diagram, the train is in its frame of reference, the wagon is 
> stationary on the track, or the track is moving under it.
> 
>   A ray of light is then sent to the ceiling of the wagon, and the time required 
> is noted. To=d/c.
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> 
> We then place ourselves in the reference frame of the route, and we note the 
> time To' necessary between A and B.
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> 
> We consider that Δx=Vo.To'
> 
> In three lines, we must be able to give the equation which links To in R, and 
> To' in R'.
> 
> Note that time is relative.
> 
> I ask Maciej to study this simple little problem, and to consider that time is 
> relative, and that the equation that links To and To" is easily discoverable.
> 
> For others, who already know the answer, like Paul B. Andersen, it is obviously 
> not necessary to intervene.
> 
> R.H. 

Nobody else to answer?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=dCniurggDyPeEBzCk5N1Ixzob2M@jntp>

R.H. 

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

#616094

Le 25/07/2023 à 20:23, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> You have to take baby steps.
> 
> We are therefore going to ask those here who do not believe in the notion of the 
> relativity of time, to please consider these two diagrams.
> 
> On the first diagram, the train is in its frame of reference, the wagon is 
> stationary on the track, or the track is moving under it.
> 
>   A ray of light is then sent to the ceiling of the wagon, and the time required 
> is noted. To=d/c.
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> 
> We then place ourselves in the reference frame of the route, and we note the 
> time To' necessary between A and B.
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vuhf1C5NRiSG-SlxjkB0UZw-QOY@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> 
> We consider that Δx=Vo.To'
> 
> In three lines, we must be able to give the equation which links To in R, and 
> To' in R'.
> 
> Note that time is relative.
> 
> I ask Maciej to study this simple little problem, and to consider that time is 
> relative, and that the equation that links To and To" is easily discoverable.
> 
> For others, who already know the answer, like Paul B. Andersen, it is obviously 
> not necessary to intervene.
> 
> R.H. 

I still don't have an answer.

 It's amazing.

 Nobody knows how to answer or would they be afraid of me?

 LOL.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=PnP7jrqESLwNbtQEmXC0D6P7_3k@jntp>

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web