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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #673532

Re: Hachel's blunder

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I always said there was something amiss with this business of relativistic
> > > > > > integration, where physicists calculate the proper time of an accelerating
> > > > > > rocket relative to the Earth's reference frame.
> > > > > > It seemed to me that the approximation was correct—that one could indeed
> > > > > > set dt = d(tau)/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} locally.
> > > > > > And that the problem lay in the integration itself.
> > > > > > But actually, no. It is the equation that is flawed. It is a beautiful
> > > > > > equation, certainly. But wrong. Completely wrong.
> > > > > > I had started from a personal error—assuming dTo^2 = dTr^2 + d€t^2
> > > > > > —but that is incorrect. Just as the Minkowski metric, which leads to
> > > > > > dt^2 = d(tau)² + d€² is completely wrong.
> > > > > > The advice and research provided by Python—who believed that if there
> > > > > > was an error, it couldn't stem from the integration but rather from the
> > > > > > formula itself—proved extremely useful.
> > > > > > So, we arrive at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ..and not to what physicists say—who make the same blunder I did (in
> > > > > > fact, you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the
> > > > > > x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when starting from
> > > > > > O).
> > > > > > That was the source of my error, just as the physicists' error stems from
> > > > > > their belief in Minkowski geometry—which works only for simple Galilean
> > > > > > reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.
> > > > > > It fails to work for rotating or uniformly accelerated reference frames.
> > > > > > It is truly alarming to realize that the *entire* doctrine must be
> > > > > > scrapped, and everything rebuilt and re-explained from scratch—starting
> > > > > > with a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity, a concept physicists
> > > > > > mistakenly conflate with chronotropy without understanding the first thing
> > > > > > about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > R.H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp>
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll explain since I'm the only genuieses in da room..
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a clock..
> > > > > it is a giant clock...
> > > > > a very big gigantic clock,
> > > > >
> > > > > and the time is...
> > > > >
> > > > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > What time is it now?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Time is ... NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > What time is it now?
> > > > >
> > > > > Now?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > it's always now.
> > > > >
> > > > > What time is it now?
> > > > >
> > > > > didn't you just ask me dat?
> > > > >
> > > > > IT'S NOW!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, i beg to differ..not according to Einstein's clock.
> > > > >
> > > > > FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!!!!
> > > >
> > > > In other words, if you want
> > > > "a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity"
> > > >
> > > > it's FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!
> > > >
> > > > There is only one universal clock, and that clock reads the time is NOW
> > > > everywere.
> > >
> > > Let me put it this way. The Universe HAS a Master Clock.
> > >
> > > Our solar system is part of this universal clock mechanism.
> > >
> > > Our solar system is part of this clock...
> > >
> > > the wheels of mercury turn faster than the wheels of earth and so on...
> > >
> > > buy a sundial.
> > >
> > > It's going to be 12: o'clock...dats when the sun is 12 o'cluck
> > > high...high up there...straight up.
> > >
> > > Einstein's clocks are for people who travel through ...Amtrack.
> > >
> > > Newton has a Master Universal Clock.
> > >
> > > Einstein has a cuckoo clock.
> > >
> > > The problem Einstein had is how do you schronize two cuckoo birds????
> > >
> > > He would have patent it if he knew how...
> > >
> > > so you are stuck forever wit dis imperfect cuckoo clock.
> > >
> > > There is no such thing as PERFECT on earth.
> > >
> > > You need to understand the 'machinery' behind the Universal Master
> > > Clock...
> > >
> > > and that machine is located OUTSIDE your egg shaped universe.
> > >
> > > Here is what the machine outside the universe looks like...
> > >
> > > (beyond the dark matter which surronds your universe)
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com./watch?tvv=IkCku4TM8HA
> >
> > Keep in mind Einstein was jealous of anything having to do with Newton.
> >
> > Einstein's goal was to bury Newton.
> >
> > (Newton's IQ was HIGHER than Einstein's IQ)
> >
> > GR was created to bury Newton.
> >
> > Does Einstein believe in a Master Universal Clock???
> >
> > Einstein only believes in ...his cuckoo clocks.
> >
> > Has Einstein ever said anything nice about...Newton????
> >
> > Newton said gravity is a force..and Einstein sez gravity is not a force.
> 
> Now, a closer examination of Gravity according to Einstein is that
> Gravity is caused by
> the curvature of space.
> 
> That isn't true.
> 
> Space is not curved.
> 
> Space does not have straight or curve lines.
> 
> An egg is curve, but the yoke in the egg is not curved.
> 
> Our universe is contained/enclosed in a curve shell. Space runs through
> in and out of this enclosure.
> 
> Gravity runs through in and out of this enclosure.
> 
> Gravity according to Newton is a force.
> 
> If a planet is round it's not because of the curvature of space...but,
> but of gravity's force.
> 
> Dark Matter is the stage in which our enclosed universe sit's on.
> 
> Evrybody who is standing upside down on the other side of the earth is
> not
> caused by the curvature of space...it's an upside down stage.
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge the unchallengeable.

How did the apple hit Newton's head if it should have 'curved' pass his
head???



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Hachel's blunder Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 11:44 +0000
  Re: Hachel's blunder Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-19 12:01 +0000
    Re: Hachel's blunder Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 12:31 +0000
      Re: Hachel's blunder Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-19 12:47 +0000
        Re: Hachel's blunder Daryll Mahurov <ama@dalrolo.ru> - 2026-09-19 16:10 +0000
          Re: Hachel's blunder Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 16:58 +0000
  Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-19 12:42 -0700
    Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-19 23:44 -0700
      Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-20 11:22 -0700
        Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-21 10:43 -0700
          Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-21 14:58 -0700
            Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-21 20:59 -0700
              Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-22 01:05 -0700

csiph-web