Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Addition of velocity

344 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Sylvia Else

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 1:42:56 AM4/19/23
to
On 19-Apr-23 3:24 pm, xip14 wrote:
> Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:
>
> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
>
> A suitcase version: Two suitcases of weights v = 60 lbs and w = 40 lbs make up a sum of designated V.
>
> V = v + w
>
> V = 60 + 40 = 100
>
> We learn from airline regulation that total luggage weight can be no greater than 50. The sum ( v + w ) can be divided by a number between 1 and 2 inclusive, the divisor being a version of ( 1 + vw/c² ). A new left-hand-side sum ( call it V ′ prime ) is reduced accordingly, to a value no greater than 50.
>
> Equation: V ′ = ( v + w ) / 2
>
> 50 = ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
>
> The equation is a left ← to ← right assignment operator. The sum of weights 60 + 40 on the right-hand-side is divided by 2 and the new value 50 is assigned to weight variable V ′ on the left-hand-side.
>
> Assignment: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
>
> The quotient ( 60 + 40 ) / 2 is identical in value to 60 / 2 + 40 / 2. When this equality is shown as an equation, it is an identity and the physical situations are irrelevant.
>
> Identity: 60 / 2 + 40 / 2 ≡ ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
>
> Einstein suggests that the assignment operator can be reconfigured so that division by 2 on the right-hand-side is the phenomenon 60 / 2 + 40 / 2.
>
> 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2
>
> Quote: “It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.”
>
> Original: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
>
> Symmetric: 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2
>
> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting each suitcase weight in half.
>
> Asymmetric: 50 ← 60 / 6 + 40 / 1
>
> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting the heavy suitcase with divisor 6, leaving the lesser suitcase with divisor 1, unchanged.
>
> Einstein is telling us how to repack our bags: divide each by 2. Do the airlines tell us how to repack our bags? No. Just cut total luggage weight in half.
>
> The symmetric and asymmetric divisions are equal as values; also equal to the original. But the symmetric and asymmetric divisions are not identical physical situations. What governs that choice? The airlines don’t care. EDoMB does care. Why is the symmetric chosen? Why does the symmetric take precedence over the asymmetric?
>

It really isn't clear what you're trying to say, but I think what you're
getting at is that Einstein somehow modified the addition rule.

The true situation is that there was never a valid reason to think that
velocities would combine by addition, and special relativity tells us
that they do not. So Einstein isn't modifying the addition rule, he's
saying that the addition rule is not what you should use to combine
velocities. Instead you should use a rule that, for small velocities, is
very similar to the addition rule, but for larger velocities is nothing
like it.

Sylvia.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 2:34:18 AM4/19/23
to
Your insane gurus can tell us what we should do to
follow THE BEST WAY we're FORCED to. And we can
ignore them. We do and we will.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 2:35:56 AM4/19/23
to
And if you're dealing with high velocities, you'll get the wrong answer.

Sylvia.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 2:50:52 AM4/19/23
to
> > followm t THE BEST WAY we're FORCED to. And we can
> > ignore them. We do and we will.
> >
> And if you're dealing with high velocities, you'll get the wrong answer.

I don't feel the urge to have my answers blessed by
Your insane gurus; I prefer them to be reliable and usable
(some criteria they have no clue about).


Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 4:29:17 AM4/19/23
to
Den 19.04.2023 07:24, skrev xip14:
> Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:
>
> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer.
It is Lorentz transformation of the velocity v
in one inertial frame to the velocity V in another
frame of reference moving with the speed w relative
to the former.

https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
Chapter 3 p.3

>
><snip nonsense>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 5:06:36 AM4/19/23
to
On Wednesday, 19 April 2023 at 10:29:17 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 19.04.2023 07:24, skrev xip14:
> > Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:
> >
> > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> >
> > Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
> The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer.

No.

> It is Lorentz transformation of the velocity v
> in one inertial frame to the velocity V in another
> frame of reference moving with the speed w relative
> to the former.


And aren't you asserting that these transformations
are reflecting the reality?

Sylvia Else

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 5:40:52 AM4/19/23
to
Your predictions of the results of the Fizeau experiment, performed in
1851, would be in error, then. Congratulations - more than 180 years
after the event, and you'd still be getting it wrong.

Sylvia.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 5:54:13 AM4/19/23
to
No. You're fabricating. I'm not trying to predict
what happened almost 200 years ago. And
whatever You imagine, describing this result
with GT is no way any real problem.. Samely as
any other result You have.
Message has been deleted

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 6:22:28 PM4/19/23
to
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 10:25:01 PM UTC-7, xip14 wrote:
> Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:
>
> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
>
> A suitcase version: Two suitcases of weights v = 60 lbs and w = 40 lbs make up a sum of designated V.
>
> V = v + w
>
> V = 60 + 40 = 100
>
> We learn from airline regulation that total luggage weight can be no greater than 50. The sum ( v + w ) can be divided by a number between 1 and 2 inclusive, the divisor being a version of ( 1 + vw/c² ). A new left-hand-side sum ( call it V ′ prime ) is reduced accordingly, to a value no greater than 50.
>
> Equation: V ′ = ( v + w ) / 2
>
> 50 = ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
>
> The equation is a left ← to ← right assignment operator. The sum of weights 60 + 40 on the right-hand-side is divided by 2 and the new value 50 is assigned to weight variable V ′ on the left-hand-side.
>
> Assignment: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
>
> The quotient ( 60 + 40 ) / 2 is identical in value to 60 / 2 + 40 / 2. When this equality is shown as an equation, it is an identity and the physical situations are irrelevant.
>
> Identity: 60 / 2 + 40 / 2 ≡ ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
>
> Einstein suggests that the assignment operator can be reconfigured so that division by 2 on the right-hand-side is the phenomenon 60 / 2 + 40 / 2.
>
> 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2
>
> Quote: “It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.”
>
> Original: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
>
> Symmetric: 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2
>
> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting each suitcase weight in half.
>
> Asymmetric: 50 ← 60 / 6 + 40 / 1
>
> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting the heavy suitcase with divisor 6, leaving the lesser suitcase with divisor 1, unchanged.
>
> Einstein is telling us how to repack our bags: divide each by 2. Do the airlines tell us how to repack our bags? No. Just cut total luggage weight in half.
>
> The symmetric and asymmetric divisions are equal as values; also equal to the original. But the symmetric and asymmetric divisions are not identical physical situations. What governs that choice? The airlines don’t care. EDoMB does care. Why is the symmetric chosen? Why does the symmetric take precedence over the asymmetric?

You can only add to your own velocity.
Frames have their own motion obeying light speed in space.
Individual frames obey the speed limit "converging
or diverging in space" below 2c.
There are two levels.

Mitchell Raemsch

Richard Hachel

unread,
Apr 19, 2023, 6:45:23 PM4/19/23
to
Le 19/04/2023 à 07:25, xip14 a écrit :

> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?JQL4PSAnOl8zUAIxhmmN8WU8IuQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=JQL4PSAnOl8zUAIxhmmN8WU8IuQ@jntp>

R.H.
Message has been deleted

Volney

unread,
Apr 20, 2023, 2:37:57 AM4/20/23
to
On 4/19/2023 6:43 AM, xip14 wrote:
> I got into this answering a question of February 9 on Stackexchange.
>
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/749402/velocity-addition-in-special-relativity
>
> Stack’s numbers come directly from Paul A. Tipler vol 3, which is why I answered the question.
>
> A train is on the track with speed v = 0.8c. A rifle on the train fires off a bullet with speed w = 0.8c, speed judged on the moving train deck, not on the ground.
>
> v = 0.8c and w = 0.8c
>
> Velocity V or V ′ ( prime ) is bullet velocity as judged on the ground.
>
> Classical velocity addition: V = v + w
>
> Classical: V = 0.8c + 0.8c = 1.6c
>
> Relativistic addition: V ′ ( prime ) = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
>
> Relativity: V ′ = ( 0.8c + 0.8c ) / ( 1 + 0.8c × 0.8c /c² )
>
> V ′ = 1.6c / ( 1 + 0.64 )
>
> V ′ = 1.6c / 1.64
>
> V ′ = 0.98c
>
> My answer on Stack is circuitous. Revised:
>
> Bullet speed is to be judged on the ground. Granted, this bullet speed is V ′ = 0.98c, not V = 1.6c. What is train-on-ground speed?

Since the speed of the train was already defined to be 0.8c, why are you
even asking this?
>
> Symmetric addition: V ′ = 0.8c /1.64 + 0.8c /1.64 ≈ 0.49c + 0.49c = 0.98c

What the hell is this? Make up your own physics day? And why are you
using a mixture of nonrelativistic speed addition and the relativistic
speed combination formulas?
>
> Train-on-ground speed: 0.49c
>
> Asymmetric addition: V ′ = 0.8c + 0.8c / 4.444 = 0.8c + 0.18c = 0.98c

More make-up-your-own-physics?
>
> Train-on-ground speed: 0.8c
>
> Which is it?

Since you started off with train-on-ground speed: 0.8c, I'd say 0.8c.
And shitcan those bizarre attempts at physics.

Richard Hachel

unread,
Apr 20, 2023, 5:24:35 AM4/20/23
to
Le 19/04/2023 à 11:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> And aren't you asserting that these transformations
> are reflecting the reality?

Poincaré-Lorentz transformations reflect the reality of things.

They lead to an equation called general addition of velocities
(relativistic or not).

If we take an addition of longitudinal velocities, we get:
w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c²)

If we take an addition of transverse velocities, we obtain:
w=sqrt(v²+u²-v²u²/c²)

And so on, if we take the right formula.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ncEkajjMLN0vt4CIU-2YXxP9ZzU@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Note that it also works for small measurable speeds in our everyday world.

Good day to all.

R.H.


Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 20, 2023, 5:29:20 AM4/20/23
to
On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 11:24:35 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/04/2023 à 11:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
> > And aren't you asserting that these transformations
> > are reflecting the reality?
> Poincaré-Lorentz transformations reflect the reality of things.

Not quite, but enough to make Paul's
"The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer."
mistaken.

Richard Hachel

unread,
Apr 20, 2023, 5:40:49 AM4/20/23
to
Le 20/04/2023 à 11:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> Not quite, but enough to make Paul's
> "The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer."
> mistaken.

No, only the speed addition formula is correct, but in addition, there is
no language error by Paul.

It is indeed an addition of speeds, except that this addition is not
simple.

We add a speed phenomenon to another speed phenomenon with a very precise
law.

I validate the equation, and I validate the term that I used (so on that,
I am 100% in agreement with Paul).


R.H.
Message has been deleted

Richard Hachel

unread,
Apr 20, 2023, 6:44:56 AM4/20/23
to
Le 20/04/2023 à 12:28, xip14 a écrit :
> Einstein 1905: It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for
> the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.
>
> Why is it worthy of remark? What is symmetrical? Is Einstein blinkered
> benighted purblind and myopic?

If the universe is covariant, the effects must be symmetric.

What an observer sees from the end of his relativistic telescope, the
other opposite must see the same effects.

That's how I was able to solve the Langevin paradox that no one had ever
solved before me.

It's a pity that the whole universe refuses to listen to me on everything.

For a long time I believed in an anomaly, but no, the fact that people
don't listen to me is one of the most beautiful things about healing.

This discredits all those who show off by believing themselves to be
geniuses because they invariably repeat the recitations they learned at
school, and who spit on everything around them.

This gives evidence of their incapacity.

R.H.
Message has been deleted

Dono.

unread,
Apr 20, 2023, 10:28:51 AM4/20/23
to
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:24:09 AM UTC-7, xip14 wrote:

> Stackexchange couldn’t deal with it and I was given the boot.

They don't suffer cretins like you much
Message has been deleted

Domingo Vassilopulos

unread,
May 11, 2023, 5:05:40 PM5/11/23
to
xip14 wrote:

> Classical: 2 + 3 = 5 Relativity: 2 + 3 = 4
> The initial post here is sort of indirect. I did a more direct version
> on a google blog.

so true indeed. One more proof the putina is a traitor. How come the
fucking nazi uKrain still have

- national television
- largee oil/diesel storage tanks
- railways
- electricity
- etc

well known that the capitalist america *_bombed_the_national_television_*
in Yugoslavia as the first thing, to avoid mobilization etc!! What is
going on here??

Huh UA's Podolyak Says If More Arms Not Given To Ukraine Terrorist Attacks
In Europe Will Occur
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/6EonnutUVT3r
Message has been deleted

gehan.am...@gmail.com

unread,
May 13, 2023, 9:09:20 AM5/13/23
to
Including length contraction. No-one will tell me if length contraction is permanent. Is the travelling twin contracted?
Don't answer.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
May 13, 2023, 1:13:45 PM5/13/23
to
Space contraction is not real... but if it was... slowing down would re expand proper length...

xip14

unread,
May 13, 2023, 1:45:15 PM5/13/23
to
Interesting comment Mitch. Slowing down will restore proper length, in the sense that something no longer “appears shorter.” Slowing down will not restore proper time - slowing down will not bring back lost time. The clock’s face-time is forever lost, even though normal tick rate returns.

Hmm...

+++++++++

We have time dilation and Lorentz Contraction.

Einstein deals with these in EDoMB-1905-Section §4:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The moving clock is slow and the moving meter stick is short.

Time equation shown: t′ = t / gamma ( gamma > 1 and t′ < t )

Length equation not shown : x′ = x / gamma

After a duration, a moving clock has face-time value less than face-time of the stationary clock.

A moving meter stick has value 1 just like the stationary item has value 1: 1 = 1

But from the point of view of the stationary stick, the moving stick “appears shorter” even though it maintains value 1.

Richard Hachel

unread,
May 13, 2023, 3:57:27 PM5/13/23
to
Le 13/05/2023 à 19:45, xip14 a écrit :

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


What bothers me the most in this article is the very strange definition of
the notion of simultaneity.

VI don't accept it at all.

At first, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but in the end, a lot of things
become absurd and contradictory, and then falsehoods appear in equations
and concepts.

Everything comes from there and only from there.

I will try to rewrite this small paragraph correctly in order to show how
it should be done and why.

Don't shout, friends...

R.H.



Chad Stavropoulos

unread,
May 13, 2023, 4:53:16 PM5/13/23
to
xip14 wrote:

> The suitcase model I put here initially wasn’t much good so I deleted
> it. Likewise Einstein 1905. The sombitch saw clearly that he had a
> problem. A shade tree mechanic beatin on iron.

the gay actor zelenske, afraid like hell to go back in ukronazia.

Zelensky rejects Pope’s mediation offer
https://%72%74.com/r%75%73%73ia/576234-zelensky-rejects-pope-mediator/

Russia understands that any peace talks will not be held “with Zelensky,
who is a dirty *_cocaine_puppet_in_the_hands_of_the_West_*, but directly
with his masters,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier
this month.

Chad Stavropoulos

unread,
May 13, 2023, 7:01:20 PM5/13/23
to
Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 13/05/2023 à 19:45, xip14 a écrit :
>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> What bothers me the most in this article is the very strange definition
> of the notion of simultaneity. VI don't accept it at all.

There is a big show happening in Germany/Berlin - zelenske will arrive by
a plane accompanied by three Euro Fighters. Bizarr!

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
May 13, 2023, 7:45:10 PM5/13/23
to
Have they upgraded the euro fighter 2000?

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
May 13, 2023, 9:13:02 PM5/13/23
to
Your frame can't add motion to another frame... only it can
add to itself.

xip14

unread,
May 14, 2023, 5:57:59 AM5/14/23
to
Poorly phrased.

Rephrased:

Length: Slowing down will restore proper length, in the sense that an object does not now “appear shorter.”

Time: After a duration, slowing down does not recover the moving clock’s lost time represented by t′ < t. That face-time on the once-moving clock is forever lost.

Compare: The now-non-moving clock has the same SIZE as a stationary clock, but it does not show the same TIME as a stationary clock, even though the slowed clock now has the same tick-rate as the stationary clock.

Tom Capizzi

unread,
May 14, 2023, 10:49:46 AM5/14/23
to
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 1:42:56 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19-Apr-23 3:24 pm, xip14 wrote:
> > Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:
> >
> > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> >
> > Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
> >
> > A suitcase version: Two suitcases of weights v = 60 lbs and w = 40 lbs make up a sum of designated V.
> >
> > V = v + w
> >
> > V = 60 + 40 = 100
> >
> > We learn from airline regulation that total luggage weight can be no greater than 50. The sum ( v + w ) can be divided by a number between 1 and 2 inclusive, the divisor being a version of ( 1 + vw/c² ). A new left-hand-side sum ( call it V ′ prime ) is reduced accordingly, to a value no greater than 50.
> >
> > Equation: V ′ = ( v + w ) / 2
> >
> > 50 = ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
> >
> > The equation is a left ← to ← right assignment operator. The sum of weights 60 + 40 on the right-hand-side is divided by 2 and the new value 50 is assigned to weight variable V ′ on the left-hand-side.
> >
> > Assignment: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
> >
> > The quotient ( 60 + 40 ) / 2 is identical in value to 60 / 2 + 40 / 2. When this equality is shown as an equation, it is an identity and the physical situations are irrelevant.
> >
> > Identity: 60 / 2 + 40 / 2 ≡ ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
> >
> > Einstein suggests that the assignment operator can be reconfigured so that division by 2 on the right-hand-side is the phenomenon 60 / 2 + 40 / 2.
> >
> > 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2
> >
> > Quote: “It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.”
> >
> > Original: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2
> >
> > Symmetric: 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2
> >
> > We get V ′ = 50 by cutting each suitcase weight in half.
> >
> > Asymmetric: 50 ← 60 / 6 + 40 / 1
> >
> > We get V ′ = 50 by cutting the heavy suitcase with divisor 6, leaving the lesser suitcase with divisor 1, unchanged.
> >
> > Einstein is telling us how to repack our bags: divide each by 2. Do the airlines tell us how to repack our bags? No. Just cut total luggage weight in half.
> >
> > The symmetric and asymmetric divisions are equal as values; also equal to the original. But the symmetric and asymmetric divisions are not identical physical situations. What governs that choice? The airlines don’t care. EDoMB does care. Why is the symmetric chosen? Why does the symmetric take precedence over the asymmetric?
> >
>
> It really isn't clear what you're trying to say, but I think what you're
> getting at is that Einstein somehow modified the addition rule.
>
> The true situation is that there was never a valid reason to think that
> velocities would combine by addition, and special relativity tells us
> that they do not. So Einstein isn't modifying the addition rule, he's
> saying that the addition rule is not what you should use to combine
> velocities. Instead you should use a rule that, for small velocities, is
> very similar to the addition rule, but for larger velocities is nothing
> like it.
>
> Sylvia.

This OP's problem, as well as many others, is the confusion created by Cartesian coordinates. There is a false claim that the preferred coordinate system is rectilinear, because of the symmetric way it handles location. Then velocities add like they do in a vector space. This works well enough for small velocities, but the universe prefers hyperbolic coordinates. In hyperbolic trigonometry, it is not velocities that add, but hyperbolic angles, what physics calls Lorentz boosts. It is easily verified that the boost of the product of two Lorentz transformations is the sum of the boosts of the individual factors. The conversion of this identity from hyperbolic trigonometry to Cartesian coordinates introduces correction terms that make it appear that velocity addition is non-linear. Conversely, extrapolating linear velocity addition to hyperbolic coordinates introduces errors that contradict fundamental trigonometric identities.

Newton's physics and linear velocity addition are only valid for velocities that are very small compared to c. The preponderance of the physical evidence shows that both break down at high velocities. The properties of a rectilinear vector space do not apply anymore. However, the properties of hyperbolic trigonometry do apply, and in the limit of very small velocities, they can be approximated by Newtonian physics and linear velocity addition. The relativistic velocity addition rule is not a correction to Newtonian velocity addition. Newtonian velocity addition is a corruption of hyperbolic trigonometry. It is an accident of history that Newton came first. But it was an approximation when he discovered it, and it is still an approximation, now.

Formally, there is a differential equation that analytically relates a hyperbolic angle to a circular angle. This is a mathematical equality, which is valid without any experimental data. The fact that the results of the math are in 100% agreement with all experimental data is sufficient reason to accept that this math represents physical reality, too. The equation is dw/dθ = γ, or its reciprocal, dθ/dw = 1/γ. The hyperbolic angle is w, the circular angle is θ and γ is the Lorentz factor. Using the empirical definition of γ, it is straightforward to show that sec(θ) = γ, simply by expressing velocity in polar coordinates, v = c sin(θ). The differential equation can then be written dθ = cos(θ) dw. From the geometric definition of a hyperbolic angle, it is easy to show that the composition of hyperbolic angles is by linear addition. We have already noted that the boost of the product of two Lorentz transformations is the sum of the boosts of the factors. This is a consequence of the fact that a Lorentz transformation is a hyperbolic rotation, and a boost is a hyperbolic angle. The hyperbolic angle is defined as an area, and an area under a hyperbola is a definite integral. All definite integrals, where they exist, are subject to rules about the limits of integration. Specifically, if A and C are the limits of integration and B is a point between them, the integral from A to C is equal the the sum of the integral from A to B and the integral from B to C. Since each integral is a boost, w, the process can be compacted to w3 = w1+w2, linear addition. This property of linear addition also applies to increments of w. Near θ = 0, some approximations are allowed, the same implicit approximations that define Newtonian velocity addition. The cos(θ) is approximately 1, the sin(θ) ≈ θ and dθ ≈ dw. In light of these approximations, the addition of small circular angles is also linear, as is the addition of sine projections of these small angles. Since velocity in polar coordinates is c sin(θ), velocity addition is linear, as an approximation. This is Newtonian physics. But when the hyperbolic angle is large, the approximations break down. Only the original identity holds, w3 = w1+w2. Since v3 = c sin(θ3) = c tanh(w3), an identity from the gudermannian function, θ3 = gd(w3), v3 = c tanh(w1+w2). Then, v3 = c(tanh(w1)+tanh(w2))/(1+tanh(w1)tanh(w2)) = ((c tanh(w1))+(c tanh(w2)))/(1+(c tanh(w1))(c tanh(w2))/c²) = (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c²). Both Newtonian and relativistic velocity addition are derived from the same differential equation, and one is an approximation that only applies at low velocities.

As this is pure math, no experiment can refute the proof. The agreement of the results with all experimental data, however, gives us a great deal of confidence that this math represents physical reality. And you will note that there were no light rays or clocks or gedankens or observers involved. No matter how elaborate the model, it must agree with the rigorous mathematics. The math agrees with the numbers, and according to physics, that's good enough.

Richard Hachel

unread,
May 14, 2023, 5:29:52 PM5/14/23
to
Le 14/05/2023 à 11:57, xip14 a écrit :

> Length: Slowing down will restore proper length, in the sense that an object
> does not now “appear shorter.”

That's right.
>
> Time: After a duration, slowing down does not recover the moving clock’s lost
> time represented by t′ < t.

That's right.

> That face-time on the once-moving clock is forever lost.

That's right.

> Compare: The now-non-moving clock has the same SIZE as a stationary clock, but
> it does not show the same TIME as a stationary clock, even though the slowed clock
> now has the same tick-rate as the stationary clock.

That's right.


R.H.


mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
May 15, 2023, 12:17:34 PM5/15/23
to
Frames can't give others their motion.
They can only give motion to themselves.

Mitchell Raemsch
Message has been deleted

Newton Smeets

unread,
May 24, 2023, 10:26:15 AM5/24/23
to
xip14 wrote:
> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.
> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² ) Einstein EDoMB 1905 Section §5

sure, but do anyone know in which country Zelenskshit is at this moment.
He really isn't in a hurry to return to the country he wants to steal, it
seems. He lets others to steal that country for him. Which is too hot
right now for him. Khinzal maybe anytime to arrive to Kiev and get the
zelenskshit to bandera, or for be taken *_from_behind_* by a russian bear.

the later, we know he likes it. He asked the bidona for more money,
*_for_him_*, if the bidona wants him to return to kiev. Dangerous time for
this gay actor motherfucker. That's what happen playing "president" for
*_the_thieves_and_whores_* of the *_collective_west_*.

the shit zelenskshit *_sold_that_country_already_ten_times_*. Amazing
those big capitalists came for stealing, not realizing that country is
sold already ten times, before them.

General Valery Zaluzhny was the only person in Ukraine with whom Russia
could do business post Ukraine war. We should not be surprised if we come
to know of Ukrainian hand behind the missile attack on General Zaluzhny.
Zelensky is afraid that he may be toppled by General Valery Zaluzhny and
wants to get rid of him.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if it turned out Zelensky and
his cadre of Nazi goons leaked the information regarding his whereabouts,
directly or indirectly, for the Russians to act upon. Considering that
according to several reports, the US is getting quite fed up with Zelensky
and was hoping to get someone more sober to replace him, Zaluzhny, and
that the British preferred ultra-fanatic rabid Nazis to remain in power, i
wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised either if the British arranged for
the information to be leaked. The point is that alternatives to Zelensky
now are no more. This means that for all practical purposes, Ukraine will
need to be completely denazified. There won't be any peace or frozen
conflict of anything for that matter. Ukraine will just cease to exist.
The only question left unanswered is if Poland is going to intervene,
because NATO for sure won't intervene if Poland gets into the fray. Expect
the British to entice further conflict. Their economical prosperity relies
on destroying the European continent.

Richard Hachel

unread,
May 24, 2023, 12:13:49 PM5/24/23
to
Le 24/05/2023 à 13:08, xip14 a écrit :

> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

? ? ?

Pourquoi se limiter toujours à la transformation longitudinale?

Pourquoi ne pas proposer l'addition générale?

Elle est pourtant très belle, et même Python a trouvé ça
remarquablement juste et beau.

Venant de lui, on devrait quand même apprécier.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ioe3fdRLkBsWw_Br-IGvfJ0Xgh0@jntp/Data.Media:1>

On remarquera que si µ=0° alors on a bien w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c²)

R.H.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ioe3fdRLkBsWw_Br-IGvfJ0Xgh0@jntp>

Python

unread,
May 24, 2023, 12:18:17 PM5/24/23
to
Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 24/05/2023 à 13:08, xip14 a écrit :
>
>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.
>
>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
>
> ? ? ?
> Pourquoi se limiter toujours à la transformation longitudinale?
> Pourquoi ne pas proposer l'addition générale?
> Elle est pourtant très belle, et même Python a trouvé ça remarquablement
> juste et beau.

Because it is pointless. In ANY case you always can change
x into X = x * cos mu without loss of generality (same
for (x,y), it just involves a euclidean rotation).

Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity in
order, imho, to brag : "Look ! I know trigonometry!"(*) and/or
to add ways for you to introduce confusion.

You are disingenuous.

(*) even if thirty years ago you pretended to reinvent
trigonometry with "hachelian" sines and cosines. Did
you forget that ?




Richard Hachel

unread,
May 24, 2023, 12:39:16 PM5/24/23
to
Le 24/05/2023 à 18:18, Python a écrit :
> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.
>>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

On peut donner l'équation générale, avec touts vitesses et tout angle,
et l'équation sera toujours juste.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?q9mhTkmJKcZBHAqgqP1eI5_GVHM@jntp/Data.Media:1>

> Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity

Bon maintenant, t'arrêtes Python.

Ton agressivité tourne au ridicule.

On dirait un petit garçon qui n'a pas eu le gâteau aux framboises
promis par maman.

R.H.


Python

unread,
May 24, 2023, 12:46:11 PM5/24/23
to
Le 24/05/2023 à 18:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:18, Python a écrit :
>> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>
>>>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.
>>>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
>
> On peut donner l'équation générale, avec touts vitesses et tout angle,
> et l'équation sera toujours juste.

POINTLESS, rideau de fumée, frime à deux balle "oh moi Lengrand je
sais écrire cos mu".

Et ta prétention à inventer des cosinus et sinus "hachéliens" il y a
plus de trente ans, on en parle, blaireau ?

>> Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity
>
> Bon maintenant, t'arrêtes Python.
>
> Ton agressivité tourne au ridicule.

Nothing aggressive, just a statement of FACT.

Rien d'agressif, just un fait constaté souvent.

Le charlatans dans ton genre adoorent introduire des
complexités inutiles à la fois pour se la jouer et
pour pouvoir introduire des confusions par la suite.


Python

unread,
May 24, 2023, 12:46:17 PM5/24/23
to
Le 24/05/2023 à 18:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:18, Python a écrit :
>> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>
>>>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.
>>>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
>
> On peut donner l'équation générale, avec touts vitesses et tout angle,
> et l'équation sera toujours juste.

POINTLESS, rideau de fumée, frime à deux balle "oh moi Lengrand je
sais écrire cos mu".

Et ta prétention à inventer des cosinus et sinus "hachéliens" il y a
plus de trente ans, on en parle, blaireau ?

>> Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity
>
> Bon maintenant, t'arrêtes Python.
>
> Ton agressivité tourne au ridicule.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
May 24, 2023, 1:31:19 PM5/24/23
to
On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 18:18:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> > Le 24/05/2023 à 13:08, xip14 a écrit :
> >
> >> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.
> >
> >> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
> >
> > ? ? ?
> > Pourquoi se limiter toujours à la transformation longitudinale?
> > Pourquoi ne pas proposer l'addition générale?
> > Elle est pourtant très belle, et même Python a trouvé ça remarquablement
> > juste et beau.
> Because it is pointless. In ANY case you always can change
> x into X = x * cos mu without loss of generality (same
> for (x,y), it just involves a euclidean rotation).
>
> Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity in


Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Jun 9, 2023, 4:34:48 AM6/9/23
to
Den 09.06.2023 02:16, skrev xip14:
> Start out at x = 0 with a pocket watch reading t = 0 and walk 10 meters in 10 seconds, ie, walking speed 1 meter per second. When you reach x = 10 your watch reads t = 10.
>
> Now your buddy, Walker-B, walks along side, double file. His pocket watch runs slowly. Every one of your seconds is only half of his, or, equivalently, the duration of his 1 second is 2 of your seconds. Time dilation. t′ = t / 2.
>
> Like you, Walker-B starts out at x = 0 at time t = t′ = 0. Because his clock is slow by a factor of 2, he arrives at x = 10 at time t′ = 5 ( his watch reads 5 seconds ).
>
> If he covers 10 meters in 5 seconds, he is going twice as fast as you: 2 meters per second.
>
> Alternatively, tell him when he starts out to go 1 meter every second on his clock. He then arrives at x = 5 when his time is t′ = 5. That’s 1 meter per second, just like your speed. However Walker-B’s arrival at x = 5 occurs when you arrive at x = 10. Half the distance in the same time: half as fast, 0.5 meters per second.
>
> Is he going twice as fast or half as fast?

You and your friend are sitting side by side in a train.
When the train starts, you reset your clocks.
When the train has travelled 100 km, your clock
shows 1 hour, while your friend's clock shows 2 hours.
What was the speed of the train?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Richard Hachel

unread,
Jun 9, 2023, 5:26:07 AM6/9/23
to
Le 09/06/2023 à 10:34, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> You and your friend are sitting side by side in a train.
> When the train starts, you reset your clocks.
> When the train has travelled 100 km, your clock
> shows 1 hour, while your friend's clock shows 2 hours.
> What was the speed of the train?


? ? ?

R.H.


Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Jun 9, 2023, 6:49:26 AM6/9/23
to
What are you fucking about, poor halfbrain? It couldn't
travel 100 km when it's still right below our asses,
could it?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Jun 10, 2023, 8:06:18 AM6/10/23
to
xip14 wrote:
> Start out at x = 0 with a pocket watch reading t = 0 and walk 10 meters in
> 10 seconds,

According to whom?

> ie, walking speed 1 meter per second.

Relative to what?

> When you reach x = 10 your watch reads t = 10.

But only for you and everything/everyone that is at rest relative to you.

> Now your buddy, Walker-B, walks along side, double file.

Then they are *at rest* relative to you, so (at rest) in *the same* inertial
reference frame.

> His pocket watch runs slowly.

*Why*, for crying out loud?

> Every one of your seconds is only half of his, or, equivalently, the
> duration of his 1 second is 2 of your seconds. Time dilation.

No, *no*, and NO.

For that to happen (γ ≈ 2), Walker-B would have to move at the speed
v ≈ 0.8667 c *relative to you*. Evidently they are not doing that,
they are moving *alongside* you.

You have developed a misconceptions about (special) relativity from the
unfortunate (and wrong) pop-sci statement “moving clocks run slow”.

That is NOT what special relativity says. Instead, it says:

*Less* *proper* time *elapses* in inertial reference frames that are in
motion *relative to* the inertial reference frame which defines proper time
(by measuring it with clocks *at rest* in *that* frame).

This is a simple consequence of the Lorentz transformation between inertial
reference frames (which we know – as has been proved by Lorentz/Poincaré and
Einstein independently – has to be used, as a consequence of the constancy
of c):

t = γ (t' − v/c² x'), γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²)
⇒ Δt = γ (Δt' + v/c² Δx').

The "moving" clocks are at rest in their inertial frame:

Δx' = 0
⇒ Δt = γ Δt'
⇔ Δt' = Δt/γ < Δt.

Or using the Minkowski metric, γ and "time dilation" jump out more naturally:

−c² dτ² = η_ab dx^a dx^b; [η]_ab = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1), x⁰ := ct, (x^i) = x⃗.

⇔ dτ² = −1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b

⇔ dτ = √(−1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b) = 1/c √(−η_ab dx^a dx^b)

⇔ dτ/dt = 1/c √(η_aa dx^a/dt dx^a/dt) = 1/c √(c² − v⃗²) = √(1 − v⃗²/c²)
= 1/γ

⇒ Δτ = ∫_W dt/γ = Δt/γ.

It then *appears* (superficially) to be so that clocks in *relative* motion
run _slower_ than at *relative* rest. But that is NOT so; they simply
measure *less* *elapsed* *proper* time because actually less proper time
elapses where they are.

> Alternatively, tell him when he starts out to go 1 meter every second on
> his clock.

This is not feasible, as your meter (rest length) and his meter (moving
length) are not the same. He will measure your meters to be length
contracted in the direction of his motion as for him – who rightfully
considers himself at rest – everything else is moving (relative to him).

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Jun 10, 2023, 8:25:53 AM6/10/23
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Or using the Minkowski metric, γ and "time dilation" jump out more naturally:
>
> −c² dτ² = η_ab dx^a dx^b; [η]_ab = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1), x⁰ := ct, (x^i) = x⃗.
>
> ⇔ dτ² = −1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b
>
> ⇔ dτ = √(−1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b) = 1/c √(−η_ab dx^a dx^b)
>
> ⇔ dτ/dt = 1/c √(η_aa dx^a/dt dx^a/dt) = 1/c √(c² − v⃗²) = √(1 − v⃗²/c²)
^
> = 1/γ

I forgot a minus sign there, but the rest is correct.

> ⇒ Δτ = ∫_W dt/γ = Δt/γ.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Titus Danas

unread,
Jul 12, 2023, 6:18:56 PM7/12/23
to
xip14 wrote:

> Same subject: Velocity Addition Formula
> But shorter and focused narrowly on one obvious aspect of the problem.
> No Lorentz Transforms.

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/

Furious Vaxxed Blame Unvaccinated For Health Consequences:
*_‘Why_Didn’t_You_Do_More_To_Warn_Us?’_* July 12, 2023 Baxter Dmitry 3
As the vaccinated continue to grapple with the disastrous consequences of
the mRNA vaccine roll-out, one question is becoming more common: Why did
the unvaccinated population not play a more proactive role in alerting the
[…]

Russia Says That The *_US_Has_Just_Confessed_To_Imminent_War_Crimes_* In
Ukraine July 12, 2023 Niamh Harris 7
Statements made by National Security Council spokesman John Kirby show
that the US has ‘confessed to war crimes’, according to the Kremlin.
During an interview with ABC, Kirby was defending President Biden’s
approval of cluster […]

Russia: *_‘Biblical_World_War_III_Is_Approaching_* – The Final Battle
Between Good and Evil’ July 12, 2023 Sean Adl-Tabatabai 5
Russia has issued an urgent warning to humanity: World War III is fast
approaching which will be apocalyptic in nature and will result in a final
battle between good and evil. According to Deputy Chairman […]

*_Biden_Reveals_Sensitive_US_Military_Information_* On Live TV
July 12, 2023 Niamh Harris 2
The US President has come under fire after making another ‘gaffe’ in which
he revealed sensitive military information during a recent live TV
interview Joe Biden’s slip was in regard to the United States’ munitions
[…]

RFK Jr:
*_CIA_Orchestrated_COVID_Lab_Leak_as_Part_of_WEF’s_Depopulation_Agenda_*
July 12, 2023 Sean Adl-Tabatabai 2
Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has accused the CIA
of orchestrating the COVID-19 lab leak in Wuhan as part of the WEF’s
depopulation agenda for humanity. According to Kennedy Jr., “the CIA was
[…]

Gaylord Adamou

unread,
Jul 12, 2023, 6:45:49 PM7/12/23
to
xip14 wrote:

> Same subject: Velocity Addition Formula But shorter and focused narrowly
> an one obvious aspect of the problem.

*_Zelensky_responds_to_NATO_demand_for_‘gratitude’_*
The Ukrainian leader changed his tune after Western leaders told him to
“cool down,” Bloomberg reported
https://%72t.com/news/579619-nato-zelensky-gratitude-weapons/

Western leaders are not following any rules, denying NATO membership to
the Ukraine. No, Western leaders simply are now, too afraid to cross any
more of Russia's "Red lines" and are now distancing themselves from the
Ukraine, now that their project in the Ukraine has failed. Western leaders
are pretending that NATO operates on some kind of *_"rules_based_order"_*
when *_in_fact_NATO_is_a_lawless_and_violent_monster_*.

“I think the American people do deserve a degree of gratitude from the
United States government [sic] for their willingness to step up, and from
the rest of the world as well,” Sullivan said" Willingness? More like
*_helplessness_to_stop_it_*.

elensky's khazar goy *_version_of_grateful_is_sacrificing_* 750,000
Ukrainian *_christian_men_to_NATO_*. Khazar goys always take, never give.

His wife *_wears_clothes_my_wife_cannot_afford_*, but this fool does not
own a suit? Really - he cannot put on a dress shirt and a tie? What does
he think, he looks cool in his tight t-shirt? I the pictures where he met
the NATO terrorists yesterday he had a stupid T-shirt on and I was
wondering if he is trying to look desperate and poor - not able to buy a
suit, yet *_his_khazar_goy_wife_dresses_as_if_she_is_the_queen_*. Idiot

West totally underestimate Russia. In their colonial, exceptionalism mind
always is greed, *_looting_and_disrespect_for_other_people_*. They become
*_Arian_supreme_race_* and this cancer will destroy them from inside their
guts.

The generous west can replace weapons by other weapons, but how can they
replace the blood of the dead and wounded ukrainians who fought
*_to_'protect_western_values'_*? More money? More promises? More lies?

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

Benedict Nomikos

unread,
Jul 12, 2023, 7:41:40 PM7/12/23
to
markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> This isn't the most incoherent ramble I've seen. Congratulations 🎉

good *_it_isn't_*, you braindead retard.

If I were Zelensky and this British punk Wallace gave me that look I see
in that picture and demanded gratitude, I would call Putin and say
Vladimir, I am sorry, can we patch it up and kick some British “aazz”? In
perfect Russian with emphasis on well aimed profanities. And I am sure
Vlad would say: “It’s about time you jerk.

He should have figured out along time ago that he is nothing but a a
doormat. He is along in the picture, says alot. This gnome should
dissapear from the surface of this globe.

Dance little monkey, dance.

I was interested in Sullivan's comment that 'the American people do
deserve a degree of gratitude...for their willingness to step up'. Were
the American people asked if they wanted to go into Ukraine, were they
invited to the discussion, were they even consulted before you (Sullivan)
suggested that billions of their money was given to a clown and his
corrupt oligarchs, to wage a war they can't and therefore won't win.

Zelinsky needs to spend more time sitting on Biden’s lap

There's no honor among thieves.

Hey West, you made the khazar goy gay actor Zelensky to think he is a GOD,
so he acts like one. You should bow down to him every time he enters a
room or when you meet him. You know *_he_is_pissed_at_his_wife_* because
*_everyone_would_talk_to_her_but_left_him_alone_*.

https://%72t.com/news/579619-nato-zelensky-gratitude-weapons/

Bubba Hagias

unread,
Jul 12, 2023, 8:08:51 PM7/12/23
to
markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> European Russians are Aryan. What's your point

the khazar goy gay actor zelenske is an Arian?? you fucking retard.

*_Russia_should_stop_attacking_Russia_* – Biden
https://%72t.com/news/579622-biden-russia-gaffe-nato/

It is true, the Ukraine is Russia. Kiev was Russia's original capitol.
Odessa was built by Catherine the Great, of Russia. That's the one thing I
like about sociopaths with dementia, it's like they took a truth serum.

It's like when Bush Jr. said that "the terrorists will never stop trying
to destroy America, and neither will we".

This guy has more glitches than Windows ME.

Talk about a cluster bomb already! Junior is trying to pick up the pieces!
Are you reading the headlines of these losers?

This thing is a walking anus.

He said it again "A country cannot be allowed to take their neighbors
territory by force".. remind him of Texas and the other 12 states, Lavrov.
Message has been deleted

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 26, 2023, 1:58:29 PM7/26/23
to
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-7, xip14 wrote:
> Doing time dilation and Lorentz Contraction, the Lorentz Transforms have a stationary observer. To do the velocity addition formula, the LT’s must put an observer in motion. The LT’s cannot put an observer in motion. A simple two-stage rocket is a good model of v-a-f, and does not require an observer-in-motion. Excessive speed is apparent at the stationary launch pad. The LT’s cannot do the two-stage rocket.
>
> Einstein 1905 Section §5, quote: “Worthy of remark.”
>
> Umpteenth version of the blog:
>
> https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/


If you accelerate toward something you will feel a weight that it does not.
You are moving toward it you are not causing it to move.
Your real weighted motion always creates an equal and opposite
appearance that doesn't have weight.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Tom Roberts

unread,
Aug 7, 2023, 1:29:57 PM8/7/23
to
On 8/6/23 1:37 PM, xip14 wrote:
> https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

That is full of nonsense and errors. You CLEARLY do not understand SR,
so your claim "Einstein erred" is hopelessly naive -- YOU erred.

Tom Roberts

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Aug 7, 2023, 1:56:00 PM8/7/23
to
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 19:29:57 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/6/23 1:37 PM, xip14 wrote:
> > https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/
>
> That is full of nonsense and errors. You CLEARLY do not understand SR,

And that we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Paparios

unread,
Aug 11, 2023, 12:49:35 PM8/11/23