Reasoning by the absurd.

[Richard Hachel]

There is a reasoning that is very important in relativistic thinking.

Reasoning by the absurd.

You have to know that the world is coherent, and that if things go wrong,
it's just that we don't understand them.

But in any case, the world cannot be absurd, and there is always a
rational explanation.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Langevin's traveler's paradox (I'm talking about the TRUE paradox, that of
non-covariant apparent velocities) seems absurd.

I was the first to discover why this was nonsense and where the error of
relativistic physicists lay.

Another "apparent" nonsense also doesn't care about the integration of
relativistic times. I have many times discussed here with physicists who
know the theory well, and I have come to discover, again, where the
problem lay.

Each time, it confuses, because the answer is not obvious, and we do not
expect, but then not at all, that good old Doctor Hachel will "still come
out of us as bullshit".

I told Stan that the sum of all observable time increments was not the
total observable time.

It sounds crazy, it sounds absurd.

And yet, it is true.

If we add up all the small parts of time, we do not get the totality of
the parts. That's not how it works.

This is why an integration is never valid (I have done tons of them, and
whatever I integrate, I always find the same result as the relativists, a
result which is absurd since it is not compatible with the fact that two
equivalent speeds would produce fantastically different effects depending
on whether it comes from an accelerated medium or a Galilean medium).

Same for the Langevin, I kept saying that the contraction of distances or
lengths was absurd as proposed, and different from what the
Poincaré-Lorentz transformations actually say.

Have a good evening.

R.H.

[JanPB]

Interesting but not relevant to science.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 1:11:29 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Langevin's traveler's paradox (I'm talking about the TRUE paradox, that of
> non-covariant apparent velocities) seems absurd.
>
> I was the first to discover why this was nonsense and where the error of
> relativistic physicists lay.

There is no error of "relativistic physicists". The only contradiction at this
point would be an experimental negation.

> Another "apparent" nonsense also doesn't care about the integration of
> relativistic times.

Don't even try to go there. You don't understand this stuff, just leave it alone.
Pick another hobby.

--
Jan

[whodat]

Using the above discussion as a jumping off point:

Is there some spot in the universe where nature fails? For example, is
there some location where existence ends? That would be of great
interest to me. Should mankind be seeking such a place or event?

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/10/22 2:56 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> the world cannot be absurd, and there is always a
> rational explanation.

What God whispered in your ear and told you this? For that is the only
way you could know this.

Then answer with the "rational explanation" for turbulence.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 11 November 2022 at 01:31:08 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 1:11:29 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > Langevin's traveler's paradox (I'm talking about the TRUE paradox, that of
> > non-covariant apparent velocities) seems absurd.
> >
> > I was the first to discover why this was nonsense and where the error of
> > relativistic physicists lay.
> There is no error of "relativistic physicists". The only contradiction at this
> point would be an experimental negation.

And poor idiot Jan is a queen of England.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 11 November 2022 at 04:42:53 UTC+1, whodat wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 6:29 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 12:56:26 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> There is a reasoning that is very important in relativistic thinking.
> >>
> >> Reasoning by the absurd.
> >>
> >> You have to know that the world is coherent, and that if things go wrong,
> >> it's just that we don't understand them.
> >>
> >> But in any case, the world cannot be absurd, and there is always a
> >> rational explanation.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> >
> > Interesting but not relevant to science.
> Using the above discussion as a jumping off point:
>
> Is there some spot in the universe where nature fails?

Fails in what?

> For example, is
> there some location where existence ends?

Does a location which doesn't exist - exist?
An interesting question, as expected from a
relativistic moron.

[J. J. Lodder]

Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 11/10/22 2:56 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > the world cannot be absurd, and there is always a
> > rational explanation.
>
> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? For that is the only
> way you could know this.

Einstein's god of course,
but Einstein has said that it is really Spinoza's god,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Very good. That is precisely Einstein's position,

Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Le 11/11/2022 à 01:29, JanPB a écrit :
>> There is a reasoning that is very important in relativistic thinking.
>>
>> Reasoning by the absurd.
>>
>> You have to know that the world is coherent, and that if things go wrong,
>> it's just that we don't understand them.
>>
>> But in any case, the world cannot be absurd, and there is always a
>> rational explanation.
>>
>> R.H.
>
> Interesting but not relevant to science.

On the contrary, I think it is of primary importance for science.

Either I lie, or I don't lie.

If I'm not lying, there's a coherence in the world, and the world is based
on total logic.

Thus, a theory which is not logical or which is absurd must be considered
false, or misunderstood.

Take the case of the theory of relativity, we see very well that there is
a profound absurdity and a manifest contradiction if we speak of the
paradox of Langevin.

This paradox actually exists, though denied by the scientific community,
which dusts it under the rug and NEVER talks about where the real paradox
lies (in apparent relativistic velocities).

Now that we are convinced that it exists (if we really want to make this
gigantic anti-dogmatic effort) we must accept the evidence of what I said
above.

Either the theory is wrong, or it is very misunderstood.

However, it is not entirely clear that this theory is false.

So it is misunderstood.

CQFD.

Je vous remercie de votre post et de vos conseils judicieux.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 11/11/2022 à 01:31, JanPB a écrit :
>>
>> Langevin's traveler's paradox (I'm talking about the TRUE paradox, that of
>> non-covariant apparent velocities) seems absurd.
>>
>> I was the first to discover why this was nonsense and where the error of
>> relativistic physicists lay.
>
> There is no error of "relativistic physicists". The only contradiction at this
> point would be an experimental negation.
>
>> Another "apparent" nonsense also doesn't care about the integration of
>> relativistic times.
>
> Don't even try to go there. You don't understand this stuff, just leave it
> alone.
> Pick another hobby.
>
> --
> Jan

It is absolutely obvious and absolutely certain that experience will prove
me right.

Scientists who rely on current equations do not have a one in ten thousand
chance of one day seeing a star located light years away located at 7.2 ly
if they flee it at 0.8c.

It is unavoidable.

They will see it at 36 ly.

Because any other answer is theoretically absurd and contradictory as I
said in the previous post.

We can never multiply 9 years of proper time by an apparent speed of 4c
to find that it is 7.2 ly.

It's absurd and arrogant to challenge me that.

It's even more arrogant to want to make people understand that Dr. Hachel
is a moron who didn't understand the theory, when not only do I understand
yours and your errors, but YOU don't understand mine, who you would kiss
right away if you understood its beauty and logic.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 11 November 2022 at 13:12:32 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/11/2022 à 01:29, JanPB a écrit :
> >> There is a reasoning that is very important in relativistic thinking.
> >>
> >> Reasoning by the absurd.
> >>
> >> You have to know that the world is coherent, and that if things go wrong,
> >> it's just that we don't understand them.
> >>
> >> But in any case, the world cannot be absurd, and there is always a
> >> rational explanation.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> >
> > Interesting but not relevant to science.
> On the contrary, I think it is of primary importance for science.
>
> Either I lie, or I don't lie.
>
> If I'm not lying, there's a coherence in the world, and the world is based
> on total logic.

You don't lie, you just gibber absurdally.

[Richard Hachel]

Yes, but it is not enough to say it in theory, it must also be proven in
practice.

For example, in this story of the contraction of distances that I have
always denounced as being taught on the spur of the moment, it would be
good (a moment of hope) for people to say that there is indeed something
that does not match, and that it is Richard Hachel who is right.
For reasons that I affirm to be non-scientific, we will never say it,
because we cannot pass the psychological course of saying it.

However, it should be funny that relativists (many of whom dislike Hachel
and despise him from simple reading) say that a body at approach speed of
0.8c has an apparent speed of 4c, and that in the Langevin, the subject
who returns to earth returns for 9 years of his own time.

That's what they say and what I say too.

The difference between them and me, and here we enter into a collosal
narcissism, is that I say that if, during a proper time of 9 years, we see
a star returning towards either at an apparent speed of 4c, it is that he
was at 36 ly.

It's terribly logical, and perfectly precise in Hachel's dogmas (and not
in theirs).

But they hide the dust under the rug, because they don't know how to
answer.

They are stuck in their notion of contraction of distances, where I speak
of elasticity of distances.

They can only conceive a contraction of 7.2 ly.

Whereas a moderately intelligent being who carefully observes the Lorentz
transformations should see that this leads to an elasticity of times and
distances (or lengths), and not to a dilation of times and a contraction
of lengths.

Hence all the paradoxes and misunderstandings.

The real equalities, I have already given them many times, I put it back
here, as long as a serious person is on this forum or comes to be there.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?jNApdPBoxWSfKySjMrc3gShJ5OE@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

[Richard Hachel]

Le 11/11/2022 à 14:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

Vous ne répondez pas à mes questions.

Je vous ai posé une question importante sur un cas d'école (le voyageur
de Tau Ceti), je ne vous ai pas vu répondre.

R.H.

R.H.

[JanPB]

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 4:20:43 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/11/2022 à 01:31, JanPB a écrit :
> >>
> >> Langevin's traveler's paradox (I'm talking about the TRUE paradox, that of
> >> non-covariant apparent velocities) seems absurd.
> >>
> >> I was the first to discover why this was nonsense and where the error of
> >> relativistic physicists lay.
> >
> > There is no error of "relativistic physicists". The only contradiction at this
> > point would be an experimental negation.
> >
> >> Another "apparent" nonsense also doesn't care about the integration of
> >> relativistic times.
> >
> > Don't even try to go there. You don't understand this stuff, just leave it
> > alone.
> > Pick another hobby.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> It is absolutely obvious and absolutely certain that experience will prove
> me right.

Everyone knows that GR and QM will be replaced by a better theory that
encompasses both. But Neither GR nor QM will ever go away regardless,
just like Newton's and Maxwell's theories are still in widespread use and will
remain so FAPP forever. Same with relativity.

> It's even more arrogant to want to make people understand that Dr. Hachel
> is a moron who didn't understand the theory,

I'm not saying you are a "moron", only that you don't understand how
physics works in general (your problem is not just relativity). You mix
it with philosophy which uses different tools for acquiring knowledge.

> when not only do I understand
> yours and your errors, but YOU don't understand mine, who you would kiss
> right away if you understood its beauty and logic.

It's not a debatable issue.

--
Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Le 11/11/2022 à 17:29, JanPB a écrit :
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 4:20:43 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 11/11/2022 à 01:31, JanPB a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Langevin's traveler's paradox (I'm talking about the TRUE paradox, that of
>> >> non-covariant apparent velocities) seems absurd.
>> >>
>> >> I was the first to discover why this was nonsense and where the error of
>> >> relativistic physicists lay.
>> >
>> > There is no error of "relativistic physicists". The only contradiction at this
>>
>> > point would be an experimental negation.
>> >
>> >> Another "apparent" nonsense also doesn't care about the integration of
>> >> relativistic times.
>> >
>> > Don't even try to go there. You don't understand this stuff, just leave it
>> > alone.
>> > Pick another hobby.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jan
>> It is absolutely obvious and absolutely certain that experience will prove
>> me right.
>
> Everyone knows that GR and QM will be replaced by a better theory that
> encompasses both. But Neither GR nor QM will ever go away regardless,
> just like Newton's and Maxwell's theories are still in widespread use and will
> remain so FAPP forever. Same with relativity.

Yes, I think some truths are eternal.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 11 November 2022 at 17:29:53 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 4:20:43 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 11/11/2022 à 01:31, JanPB a écrit :
> > >>
> > >> Langevin's traveler's paradox (I'm talking about the TRUE paradox, that of
> > >> non-covariant apparent velocities) seems absurd.
> > >>
> > >> I was the first to discover why this was nonsense and where the error of
> > >> relativistic physicists lay.
> > >
> > > There is no error of "relativistic physicists". The only contradiction at this
> > > point would be an experimental negation.
> > >
> > >> Another "apparent" nonsense also doesn't care about the integration of
> > >> relativistic times.
> > >
> > > Don't even try to go there. You don't understand this stuff, just leave it
> > > alone.
> > > Pick another hobby.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > It is absolutely obvious and absolutely certain that experience will prove
> > me right.
> Everyone knows that GR and QM will be replaced by a better theory that
> encompasses both. But Neither GR nor QM will ever go away regardless,

[Maciej Wozniak]

Mystycians are looking for absolutes.

[Stefano Martelli]

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 4:20:43 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> It is absolutely obvious and absolutely certain that experience will
>> prove me right.
>
> Everyone knows that GR and QM will be replaced by a better theory that
> encompasses both. But Neither GR nor QM will ever go away regardless,
> just like Newton's and Maxwell's theories are still in widespread use
> and will remain so FAPP forever. Same with relativity.

you just keep proving the idiot you are, repeating inconsistent heard
bullshit from somewhere else. Those are completely different logic domains,
and *no_theory* will *ever_encompass_both*. I thought only a cretin like
kenseto comes out with such nonsense.

[JanPB]

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 4:20:43 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 11/11/2022 à 01:31, JanPB a écrit :
> >>
> >> Langevin's traveler's paradox (I'm talking about the TRUE paradox, that of
> >> non-covariant apparent velocities) seems absurd.
> >>
> >> I was the first to discover why this was nonsense and where the error of
> >> relativistic physicists lay.
> >
> > There is no error of "relativistic physicists". The only contradiction at this
> > point would be an experimental negation.
> >
> >> Another "apparent" nonsense also doesn't care about the integration of
> >> relativistic times.
> >
> > Don't even try to go there. You don't understand this stuff, just leave it
> > alone.
> > Pick another hobby.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> It is absolutely obvious and absolutely certain that experience will prove
> me right.

No chance. The only way relativity can be negated is by experiment, but this
experiment will not be what you've been posting here. Your approach has
no chance.

> Scientists who rely on current equations

I was talking (and continue to talk) about an _experimental_ dispoof.
You'll never find anything contradictory in relativity by doddling with its
equations.

Again, you are wasting your life away on chasing fantasies.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 1:04:40 PM UTC-8, Stefano Martelli wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 4:20:43 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> It is absolutely obvious and absolutely certain that experience will
> >> prove me right.
> >
> > Everyone knows that GR and QM will be replaced by a better theory that
> > encompasses both. But Neither GR nor QM will ever go away regardless,
> > just like Newton's and Maxwell's theories are still in widespread use
> > and will remain so FAPP forever. Same with relativity.
> you just keep proving the idiot you are, repeating inconsistent heard
> bullshit from somewhere else.

Well, repeating a true statement will necessarily sound like, well, a
_repetition_.

Sorry about that. But that's the way it is.

> Those are completely different logic domains,
> and *no_theory* will *ever_encompass_both*. I thought only a cretin like
> kenseto comes out with such nonsense.

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Le 12/11/2022 à 23:58, JanPB a écrit :
> No chance. The only way relativity can be negated is by experiment, but this
> experiment will not be what you've been posting here. Your approach has
> no chance.
>
>> Scientists who rely on current equations
>
> I was talking (and continue to talk) about an _experimental_ dispoof.
> You'll never find anything contradictory in relativity by doddling with its
> equations.
>
> Again, you are wasting your life away on chasing fantasies.

You do not understand what I say, and yet I express it with clear and
correct words.

You do not understand that YOU have established a dogma and that you say:
"We are sure to be right".

The problem is that (too bad if you think I'm arrogant) relativity, as
taught (the word "taught" is important) has no chance of being true,
because it is theoretically absurd and don't understand what the Lorentz
transformations "really" say.

It's the metric used that is not good and makes things nonsense.

I haven't stopped, for 36 years, asking people who are interested in
theory, there are sincere people, not everyone is a "scientific rogue"
described a Langevin in apparent speeds.

The absurdity is then obvious.

But it terrifies my interlocutors so much and it takes them so much by
surprise that they are ALL unable to pursue a coherent discussion.

So no, the reverse is true.

The theory as presented has no chance of being true.

But they don't study me.

So we're going around in circles in a problem which is human (we don't
want you to talk to us) and which is no longer scientific at all.

No, your "trick" has no chance of being true.

I don't even need experiments to find out, it's theoretically grated from
the start.

Now I am waiting for the possibility of experimenting.

But I'm sure I'm right, because I'm talking about coherent things, and not
about a false and abstract (see complex) Minkowskian universe.

R.H.

[Erasmo Sparacello]

JanPB wrote:

>> > Everyone knows that GR and QM will be replaced by a better theory
>> > that encompasses both. But Neither GR nor QM will ever go away
>> > regardless, just like Newton's and Maxwell's theories are still in
>> > widespread use and will remain so FAPP forever. Same with relativity.
>> you just keep proving the idiot you are, repeating inconsistent heard
>> bullshit from somewhere else.
>
> Well, repeating a true statement will necessarily sound like, well, a
> _repetition_.
>
> Sorry about that. But that's the way it is.
>
>> Those are completely different logic domains,
>> and *no_theory* will *ever_encompass_both*. I thought only a cretin
>> like kenseto comes out with such nonsense.
>
> Gobbledygook.

how much gives 1+1 in quantum mechanics, idiot?? Fucked up also in
probabilities, aint you. Amazing with this idiot.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 3:26:46 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 12/11/2022 à 23:58, JanPB a écrit :
> > No chance. The only way relativity can be negated is by experiment, but this
> > experiment will not be what you've been posting here. Your approach has
> > no chance.
> >
> >> Scientists who rely on current equations
> >
> > I was talking (and continue to talk) about an _experimental_ dispoof.
> > You'll never find anything contradictory in relativity by doddling with its
> > equations.
> >
> > Again, you are wasting your life away on chasing fantasies.
> You do not understand what I say, and yet I express it with clear and
> correct words.
>
> You do not understand that YOU have established a dogma and that you say:
> "We are sure to be right".

It's not a dogma, stop fantasising.

> The problem is that (too bad if you think I'm arrogant) relativity, as
> taught (the word "taught" is important) has no chance of being true,

It has not been contradicted experimentally to date and it's internally
consistent.

> because it is theoretically absurd

False.

> and don't understand what the Lorentz
> transformations "really" say.

I don't know who you are talking about.

> It's the metric used that is not good and makes things nonsense.

No, you simply don't understand how physics works in general and
you don't understand relativity in particular.

> I haven't stopped, for 36 years, asking people who are interested in
> theory, there are sincere people, not everyone is a "scientific rogue"
> described a Langevin in apparent speeds.
>
> The absurdity is then obvious.

Except you cannot convince anyone.

> But it terrifies my interlocutors so much

Stop fantasising.

> and it takes them so much by
> surprise that they are ALL unable to pursue a coherent discussion.

It's coherent but you don't understand it.

> So no, the reverse is true.
>
> The theory as presented has no chance of being true.

Again, it s not been contradicted experimentally to date and it's internally
consistent.

> But they don't study me.

It's immediately obvious that you are wrong.

> So we're going around in circles in a problem which is human (we don't
> want you to talk to us) and which is no longer scientific at all.

The reason we are going in circles is the same as it has always been
on this NG (and in life in general): people who don't understand something
cannot be reasoned with. It's a paradox that has been known for ages.

> No, your "trick" has no chance of being true.
>
> I don't even need experiments to find out, it's theoretically grated from
> the start.
>
> Now I am waiting for the possibility of experimenting.
>
> But I'm sure I'm right, because I'm talking about coherent things, and not
> about a false and abstract (see complex) Minkowskian universe.

Nonsense.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/11/22 3:04 PM, Stefano Martelli wrote:
> JanPB wrote:

>> Everyone knows that GR and QM will be replaced by a better theory

>> that encompasses both. [...]

>
> Those are completely different logic domains, and *no_theory* will
> *ever_encompass_both*.

No. GR and QM are physical theories valid in different PHYSICAL domains
-- "logic" has nothing to do with this. But since nature always does
something, there MUST be a single physical model that is valid in all
natural domains, which would necessarily include the domains of both GR
and QM. We have not discovered it, yet; it is possible we may never
discover it....T A likely reason for that is simply that it is not
feasible to perform experiments at sufficiently high energies; other
reasons are possible (e.g. it is not possible to obtain sufficiently
good measurement resolutions).

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 12 November 2022 at 23:58:25 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 4:20:43 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 11/11/2022 à 01:31, JanPB a écrit :
> > >>
> > >> Langevin's traveler's paradox (I'm talking about the TRUE paradox, that of
> > >> non-covariant apparent velocities) seems absurd.
> > >>
> > >> I was the first to discover why this was nonsense and where the error of
> > >> relativistic physicists lay.
> > >
> > > There is no error of "relativistic physicists". The only contradiction at this
> > > point would be an experimental negation.
> > >
> > >> Another "apparent" nonsense also doesn't care about the integration of
> > >> relativistic times.
> > >
> > > Don't even try to go there. You don't understand this stuff, just leave it
> > > alone.
> > > Pick another hobby.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > It is absolutely obvious and absolutely certain that experience will prove
> > me right.
> No chance. The only way relativity can be negated is by experiment

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 05:18:11 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:

> It has not been contradicted experimentally to date and it's internally
> consistent.

No, it is not, as proven many times here. And, of course, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in
forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 05:53:18 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/11/22 3:04 PM, Stefano Martelli wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> >> Everyone knows that GR and QM will be replaced by a better theory
> >> that encompasses both. [...]
> >
> > Those are completely different logic domains, and *no_theory* will
> > *ever_encompass_both*.
> No. GR and QM are physical theories valid in different PHYSICAL domains

In different gedankenwelts.

> -- "logic" has nothing to do with this. But since nature always does
> something, there MUST be a single physical model that is valid in all
> natural domains

Wet dreams of an arrogant, incompetent moron.

[Otto Aconi]

I beg you to reconsider, reread what you wrote. Different logic domains are
incompatible and not translatable in any way. And the Nature
*does_something* only in Macro Scale. In Quantum scale there are no such
actions, or actions at all. You never know what 1+1 (macro scale) gives at
Quantum Scale, hence because the logic domains, those domain can never
become unifiable. You may invent stories, which would appear to make sense,
but the unification is absurd and will never take place.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 13/11/2022 à 05:18, JanPB a écrit :
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 3:26:46 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 12/11/2022 à 23:58, JanPB a écrit :
>> > No chance. The only way relativity can be negated is by experiment, but this
>> > experiment will not be what you've been posting here. Your approach has
>> > no chance.
>> >
>> >> Scientists who rely on current equations
>> >
>> > I was talking (and continue to talk) about an _experimental_ dispoof.
>> > You'll never find anything contradictory in relativity by doddling with its
>> > equations.
>> >
>> > Again, you are wasting your life away on chasing fantasies.
>> You do not understand what I say, and yet I express it with clear and
>> correct words.
>>
>> You do not understand that YOU have established a dogma and that you say:
>> "We are sure to be right".
>
> It's not a dogma, stop fantasising.

The Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are not a dogma.

They are real and natural.

They are part of the laws of nature, like the laws of universal
gravitation.

On the other hand, when I come across a relativist who tells me that this
implies that distances contract and that time expands, I say, I who speak
knowingly, because I studied this theory for 36 years when I entered it
deeper that it is a dogma, and a false and misunderstood proposition.

The equations L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) and T'=T/sqrt(1-v²/c²) only apply to
objects in transverse displacement.

The real equations are here.

But I'm told I'm a "crank" and I can't do anything about it.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?MzhgLr0DYM5MgsAWQU33AfcUUDk@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.



--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas.
Il n'y a pas que de la violence avec des armes : il y a des situations de
violence."
Abbé Pierre
₀₀₀
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=MzhgLr0DYM5MgsAWQU33AfcUUDk@jntp>

[Richard Hachel]

Le 13/11/2022 à 05:18, JanPB a écrit :

> It has not been contradicted experimentally to date and it's internally
> consistent.

Yes, it is experimentally contradicted by the EPR effect.

It is therefore contradicted theoretically by the mathematical absurdity
(ugliness and internal impossibility) and experimentally by the EPR effect
(external refutation).


R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 13/11/2022 à 05:18, JanPB a écrit :

>> But they don't study me.
>
> It's immediately obvious that you are wrong.

Contradiction.

R.H.

[JanPB]

True. But at this point I think people would be very happy with "merely"
an _experimentally unconfirmed_ grand theory as long as it included both
GR and QM in a reasonable purely mathematical sense. We do not have
even THAT. If anything, GR and QM pull as hard as they can in mathematically
opposite directions.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

What is "transverse displacement"? You keep using undefined terms.

> The real equations are here.
>
> But I'm told I'm a "crank" and I can't do anything about it.

Yes, you are a crank who does not understand the theory. The fact
that this is the state of your mental affairs after 36 years
only demonstrates that you have no talent for physics. Just
do something else, something you can actually be good at.
What's the point of insisting on doodling in something you have
no chance of ever succeeding?

--
Jan

[JanPB]

No, it's statement of a fact that's obvious to any expert.
Yes, I know that you cannot see it. That's the problem
you are struggling with.

--
Jan

[Otto Aconi]

JanPB wrote:

>> No. GR and QM are physical theories valid in different PHYSICAL domains
>> -- "logic" has nothing to do with this. But since nature always does
>> something, there MUST be a single physical model that is valid in all
>> natural domains, which would necessarily include the domains of both GR
>> and QM. We have not discovered it, yet; it is possible we may never
>> discover it....T A likely reason for that is simply that it is not
>> feasible to perform experiments at sufficiently high energies; other
>> reasons are possible (e.g. it is not possible to obtain sufficiently
>> good measurement resolutions).
>
> True. But at this point I think people would be very happy with
> "merely"
> an _experimentally unconfirmed_ grand theory as long as it included both
> GR and QM in a reasonable purely mathematical sense. We do not have even
> THAT. If anything, GR and QM pull as hard as they can in mathematically
> opposite directions.

finally you gotten something correct, but you are still wrong. What they
are trying to do is to USE macro scale logic/math to explain quantum scale.
100% absurd.