Where is the (real) error

[Richard Hachel]

Where is the error?

Do you have a playful temperament?

Problem of Tau Ceti (accelerated repository).

To obtain the average relativistic speed in a very small segment (or a
larger one), one can first calculate the observable time taken by the
object according to the distance (or the real speed).
This is the first of three steps.
We then note:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
Or To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr²/c²)
We then find the same result.
We therefore have the observable (measurable, improper) time up to point
A.
And we do the same to have the observable time up to point B.

Second step:
We subtract ToA from ToB, and we set ΔTo=ToB-ToA

Third step, we assume that the observable instantaneous speed (or the
average observable speed in the segment AB) is Vo=Δx/ΔTo

The physics is really very simple.

All the physicists in the world do that, and I used to do that too.

And yet everything collapses, and everything is false on arrival. This
results in a speed that is enormously greater than the reality of things.

In which of the three conditions is the blunder?

I don't think there's anyone in the world capable of answering that, and
that, to shove the problem under the rug, everyone is going to say that
there's no problem, and that it's is Richard Hachel who is very stupid.

I've already been hit when I explained the relativistic blunder that
created the Langevin paradox in Galilean velocities.

No one believed me, so full of certainty and arrogance is everyone.

We will necessarily do it again.

R.H.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Where is the error?

See below.

> Problem of Tau Ceti (accelerated repository).

“repository” is not the correct word. A repository is a room (or, by
extension, a data area) that one stores things in.

You might have been looking for the term “frame of reference”, shorter
“reference frame”. While we do say that something or someone is “in” a
frame of reference, what we mean by that, though, is that we are using
coordinates in which that object or person is at rest.

> To obtain the average relativistic speed

The relativistic speed is just the speed. The adjective “relativistic” is
merely used to indicate that it is a fast speed, a considerable fraction of
c (v > 0.15 c is common as an indicator).

> in a very small segment (or a larger one),

A segment of what?

> one can first calculate the observable time taken by the
> object according to the distance (or the real speed).

The speed of an object does not depend on any time that would be observed in
that object’s frame. It solely depends on the difference in coordinates of
that object in the frame in which we say that it is moving (in motion
relative to that frame).

> This is the first of three steps.

No.

> We then note:

*You* do; we *don’t*.

> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
> Or To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr²/c²)
> We then find the same result.

The speed of an object is simply defined and calculated as

v ≔ ‖dx⃗/dt‖₂,

where x⃗ and t are the position and time measured in the frame relative to
which said object is considered moving.

> The physics is really very simple.

Yes.

> All the physicists in the world do that, and I used to do that too.

_No_ physicist in the world is calculating like you do because because it is
simply nonsense.


PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[Richard Hachel]

Le 04/11/2022 à 00:19, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

> _No_ physicist in the world is calculating like you do

It's true.

>because because it is simply nonsense.

I spent 36 years of my life trying to understand relativistic kinematics.

Today I achieved it.

So I managed to understand "something else" than the accepted standards.

On your side, try not to confuse the words "strangeness and nonsense".

On the other hand, I find it unfortunate that you criticize the
theoretical positions of another man without having previously understood
them correctly.


> PointedEars

R.H.

[Stan Fultoni]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:17:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> To obtain the average speed for a trajectiry from A to B in terms
> of a given coordinate system x,t one can first calculate the coordinate
> time taken by the object. We have for a trajectory of constant proper
> acceleration "a" beginning from rest at the origin: t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a).
> We therefore have the coordinate time tA at xA, and coordinate time tB
> at xB. We have Δt = tB - tA and we set Δx = xB - xA, and the average
> velocity in terms of these cordinates is v = Δx/Δt.

There is no error in the above. For example, with xA=3.0 and xB=3.1, we have tA=3.834504 and tB=3.937453, so we have Δx = 0.1 and Δt = 0.102949, and therefore the average velocity is v = Δx/Δt = 0.971356.

> Where is the error?

Your error is in the statement

> Or t = T * sqrt[1 + (1/4)(aT)^2]

where "T" represents the elapsed proper time along the unaccelerated path from the origin to the event on the trajectory at time t. This has been explained to you many times before. Again, if "T" was the proper time along the accelerating trajectory, it would imply 1=0, which is absurd.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 04/11/2022 à 00:19, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> _No_ physicist in the world is calculating like you do
>
> It's true.

Yes, it is. There is literally no physicist who subscribes to your
fantasies *because* they are merely *fantasies*.

>>because because it is simply nonsense.
>
> I spent 36 years of my life trying to understand relativistic kinematics.

Other people manage to do that in 3 years, so you should not consider yours
a great accomplishment. Instead, it shows how slow a thinker you are.


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Richard Hachel]

Le 04/11/2022 à 00:57, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:17:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> To obtain the average speed for a trajectiry from A to B in terms
>> of a given coordinate system x,t one can first calculate the coordinate
>> time taken by the object. We have for a trajectory of constant proper
>> acceleration "a" beginning from rest at the origin: t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a).
>> We therefore have the coordinate time tA at xA, and coordinate time tB
>> at xB. We have Δt = tB - tA and we set Δx = xB - xA, and the average
>> velocity in terms of these cordinates is v = Δx/Δt.
>
> There is no error in the above. For example, with xA=3.0 and xB=3.1, we have
> tA=3.834504 and tB=3.937453, so we have Δx = 0.1 and Δt = 0.102949, and
> therefore the average velocity is v = Δx/Δt = 0.971356.

Il y a une erreur ici.

Les relativistes se trompent.

>
>> Where is the error?
>
> Your error is in the statement
>

>> Or To = Tr * sqrt[1+ (1/4)Vr²/c²]

I Repeat:

To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr²/c²)

or,

To=(x/c)sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

or,

To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)a²Tr²/c²)

or,

To=sqrt(Tr²+Et²)

or,
To=Tr.sqrt(1+xa/2c²)

You can replace To by t, and Tr by tau if you want.

>
> where "T" represents the elapsed proper time along the unaccelerated path from
> the origin to the event on the trajectory at time t. This has been explained to
> you many times before. Again, if "T" was the proper time along the accelerating
> trajectory, it would imply 1=0, which is absurd.

The theory of relativity is not absurd.

It is only very misunderstood by men.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 04/11/2022 à 01:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Le 04/11/2022 à 00:19, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>> _No_ physicist in the world is calculating like you do
>>
>> It's true.
>
> Yes, it is. There is literally no physicist who subscribes to your
> fantasies *because* they are merely *fantasies*.
>
>>>because because it is simply nonsense.
>>
>> I spent 36 years of my life trying to understand relativistic kinematics.
>
> Other people manage to do that in 3 years, so you should not consider yours
> a great accomplishment. Instead, it shows how slow a thinker you are.

This answer is insulting.

Besides, she's stupid, and doesn't honor you. Any sane man would have
immediately thought that if after 36 years, I had managed to tie up a
complete theory without paradox, I had necessarily understood something
other than what is commonly accepted.

> PointedEars

R.H.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

If you had; but you haven’t. You are merely having delusions that you have
accomplished anything, as the record shows. If you consider that insulting,
then apparently I have hit a nerve, and you have difficulties dealing with
the truth (of your incompetence, which of course is the original reason why
you are having delusions).

BTW:

“10 points [on the Crackpot Index] for beginning the description of your
theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for
emphasizing that you worked on your own.)”

<https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html>


PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Richard Hachel]

Le 04/11/2022 à 01:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> If you had; but you haven’t. You are merely having delusions that you have
> accomplished anything, as the record shows. If you consider that insulting,
> then apparently I have hit a nerve, and you have difficulties dealing with
> the truth (of your incompetence, which of course is the original reason why
> you are having delusions).

I don't think I have any delirium at home, and the problem is not delirium
but religious belief at home.

You have the perfect religious belief that it is absolutely impossible for
other people to tell truths.

It's a dogma your thing, and this dogma, it is very quickly stripped.

Just ask someone: "Do you understand what Richard Hachel is saying, and
are you able to explain it on a board?"

The person will tell you NO.

It will then be very easy to answer: "No, but wait, I don't understand. If
you haven't understood anything, how can you say that it's absurd or that
it's wrong"?

Because it is dogma.

We build the dogma that Richard Hachel was wrong, without even having
listened to or understood what he said and why he said it.

It's not scientific.

It's a religious dogma.

R.H.

[Stan Fultoni]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 5:14:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Your error is in the statement

>> t = T * sqrt[1+ (1/4)(aT)²]

>> where "T" represents the elapsed proper time along the unaccelerated path from
>> the origin to the event on the trajectory at time t. This has been explained to
>> you many times before. Again, if "T" was the proper time along the accelerating
>> trajectory, it would imply 1=0, which is absurd.
>
> The theory of relativity is not absurd.

You mis-read. I did not say special relativity is absurd... it is not. I said your beliefs (which imply 1=0) are absurd.

Again, to obtain the average speed for a trajectory t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a) from A to B in terms of a given coordinate system x,t have the coordinate time tA at xA, and coordinate time tB at xB, and we have Δt = tB - tA and Δx = xB - xA, and the average velocity in terms of these cordinates is v = Δx/Δt.

For example, with xA=3.0 and xB=3.1, we have tA=3.834504 and tB=3.937453, so we have Δx = 0.1 and Δt = 0.102949, and therefore we have the average velocity v = Δx/Δt = 0.971356.
>
>There is an error here.

What is the error?

[Richard Hachel]

I told you before, but you make no effort.

However, if I tell you that you have to be very careful with the
observable speeds, and that these are not the real speeds, you believe me.

If I tell you that proper times are not observable times, you believe me.

In short, when I tell you that you have to be very careful with the theory
of relativity, and that it is very simple but stuffed with little
pitfalls, in the end, you believe me.

When I tell you that two-speed clothing should not be added, you are
telling me that you know it. And you believe me if I say that
0.5c+0.5c=0.8c.

But if I tell you, beware, there are things you can't do in accelerated
repositories either, you don't believe me anymore.

There is however a catastrophic error, which consists in believing that
the observable times add or subtract without problem.

And that's what you all do.

You don't do this for observable velocities Vo, and that's fine.

But you do it for observable times.

Therein lies the catastrophic error, and the far too high speeds you
predict.

Speeds moreover incompatible with the same joint Galilean speed, which is
an absurdity.

If we take the right equation, all the problems disappear and we directly
have v/c=[1+c²/2ax] at each point of the trajectory in x.

We must abandon the idea that To=To1+To2

It sounds amazing.

But this is only true for real times or proper times.
Tr=Tr1+Tr2
(tau=tau1+tau2)

But this is not true for observable times.

Therefore, Vo=Δx/ΔTo is true.

But To is wrong, it's not the right ΔTo.

R.H.

[Stan Fultoni]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 6:09:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Again, to obtain the average speed for a trajectory t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a) from A
> > to B in terms of a given coordinate system x,t have the coordinate time tA at xA,
> > and coordinate time tB at xB, and we have Δt = tB - tA and Δx = xB - xA, and the
> > average velocity in terms of these cordinates is v = Δx/Δt.
> >
> > For example, with xA=3.0 and xB=3.1, we have tA=3.834504 and tB=3.937453, so we
> > have Δx = 0.1 and Δt = 0.102949, and therefore we have the average velocity v =
> > Δx/Δt = 0.971356.
> >>
> >>There is an error here.
> >
> > What is the error?
>
> I told you before, but you make no effort.

No, you did not tell me. Please tell me what is the error?

> If I tell you the observable speeds are not the real speeds, you believe me.

No, the speed in terms of the coordinates x,t is a real speed, in the sense that it is the distance traveled in the time traveled (in terms of x,t), which is the definition of velocity in terms of x,t. This is what would be measured by a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame.

> If I tell you that proper times are not observable times, you believe me.

No, proper times are perfectly observable... as are coordinate times.

> You believe me if I say that 0.5c+0.5c=0.8c.

No, that is insane. 0.5c + 0.5c = 1c. Special relativity did not overthrow arithmetic. You have been misled. Your brain is filled with misinformation and misunderstanding. Special relativity does NOT say 0.5c + 0.5c = 0.8c, it says (0.5c + 0.5c)/[1 + (0.5c)(0.5c)/c^2] = 0.8c. Do you understand this?

> We must abandon [rationality and santiy].

No, we must not. You need to discard everything you think you know about special relativity, and start over from the beginning.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 04/11/2022 à 01:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

>> If you had [made an accomplishment ]; but you haven’t. You are merely

>> having delusions that you have accomplished anything, as the record
>> shows. If you consider that insulting, then apparently I have hit a
>> nerve, and you have difficulties dealing with the truth (of your
>> incompetence, which of course is the original reason why you are having
>> delusions).
>

> I don't think I have any delirium at home, […[

One of your problems that lead (past tense) to and reinforce your self-
delusion is that you have never learned comprehensive reading. I wrote
“delusion”, not “delirium”.


PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Mikko]

On 2022-11-03 22:17:36 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Where is the error?
...

> Third step, we assume that the observable instantaneous speed (or the
> average observable speed in the segment AB) is Vo=Δx/ΔTo

...

One error is here: that formula is not an assumption but a definition.
But it is not the definition of instantameous speed, it is the definiton
of the average speed of in that segment. From continuity we can infer that
it is the instantaneous speed at some point in that interval.

However, the real error that has confused you is probably elsewhere.
More likely, you have made so many errors that finding one does not
help.

Mikko

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 4 November 2022 at 10:58:42 UTC+1, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-11-03 22:17:36 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
> > Where is the error?
> ...
> > Third step, we assume that the observable instantaneous speed (or the
> > average observable speed in the segment AB) is Vo=Δx/ΔTo
> ...
>
> One error is here: that formula is not an assumption but a definition.

And what do you think a definition is, poor halfbrain?

[Richard Hachel]

Le 04/11/2022 à 10:58, Mikko a écrit :
> One error is here: that formula is not an assumption but a definition.
> But it is not the definition of instantameous speed, it is the definiton
> of the average speed of in that segment. From continuity we can infer that
> it is the instantaneous speed at some point in that interval.

In your post two things: an interesting comment and a bullshit comment.

>
> However, the real error that has confused you is probably elsewhere.
> More likely, you have made so many errors that finding one does not
> help.

The first comment is interesting, because it differentiates an average
speed and an instantaneous speed.

You say it's the same thing.

It is very true and very correct.

But do you really think I don't?

Now, nothing prevents me from choosing a very small segment in the
evolution of the traveler of Tau Ceti (12ly). For example, a small segment
of one hundred meters, if I speak in time, or a small segment of proper
time, or a small segment of improper time, taking for example a small
amount of time like thirty seconds.

I will therefore have an average speed between the segment AB which is
similar to the instantaneous speed of the center of AB for example,
whether we are talking about real speed (Vr) or observable speed (Vo=v).

Here I can simplify and practice equivalence.


On the other hand, I no longer agree with you at all when you say that my
assertions are teeming with errors.

It's gratuitous and insulting.

I'm not saying that I can't do, sometimes mistakes, or huge blunders. But
at least me, I try to correct them, and I manage to write superb things.

Relativists in general, unfortunately, are very arrogant, and don't even
understand that sometimes they are outdone by me.

This arrogance is of the order of the religious doctrine "We can't be
wrong, and if we were wrong, it's not that asshole Doctor Hachel who will
teach us".

This behavior that I have known for years is not scientific, it is just
human.

A real scientist would say to me: "Sir, sit down, we will listen to you
with respect and attention".

This is NEVER the case.

Everyone criticizes me, but no one has ever understood anything.

I don't understand Chinese, and it wouldn't occur to me to criticize a
poem by King-Foo-Yang-Tse.

With me, that's what all my opponents do.

It is not scientific or even humanly logical.

R.H.

[Stan Fultoni]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:32:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > To obtain the average speed for a trajectory t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a) from A

> > to B in terms of a given coordinate system x,t have the coordinate time tA at xA,
> > and coordinate time tB at xB, and we have Δt = tB - tA and Δx = xB - xA, and the
> > average velocity in terms of these cordinates is v = Δx/Δt.
> >
> > For example, with xA=3.0 and xB=3.1, we have tA=3.834504 and tB=3.937453, so we
> > have Δx = 0.1 and Δt = 0.102949, and therefore we have the average velocity v =
> > Δx/Δt = 0.971356.
>
> There is an error here.

What is the error?

> If I tell you the observable speeds are not the real speeds, you believe me.

No, the speed dx/dt in terms of the coordinates x,t is a real speed, the distance traveled in the time traveled (in terms of x,t), which is the definition of velocity in terms of x,t. This is what would be measured by a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame.

> If I tell you that proper times are not observable times, you believe me.

No, proper times are perfectly observable... as are coordinate times. See above.

> You believe me if I say that 0.5c+0.5c=0.8c.

No, that's insane. The fact is that 0.5c + 0.5c = 1c. Special relativity did not overthrow arithmetic. You have been misled. Your brain is filled with misinformation and misunderstanding. Special relativity does NOT say 0.5c + 0.5c = 0.8c, it says (0.5c + 0.5c)/[1 + (0.5c)(0.5c)/c^2] = 0.8c. This is the composition (not the addition) of speeds in terms of two different systems of standard inertial coordinates. Do you understand this?

> We must abandon...

No, we must not abandon sanity and rationality. You are terribly misinformed, and laboring under severe misunderstandings.
You need to discard everything you think you know about special relativity, and start over from the beginning. And you should stop running away from the truth. Agreed?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 4 November 2022 at 14:16:12 UTC+1, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:32:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > To obtain the average speed for a trajectory t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a) from A
> > > to B in terms of a given coordinate system x,t have the coordinate time tA at xA,
> > > and coordinate time tB at xB, and we have Δt = tB - tA and Δx = xB - xA, and the
> > > average velocity in terms of these cordinates is v = Δx/Δt.
> > >
> > > For example, with xA=3.0 and xB=3.1, we have tA=3.834504 and tB=3.937453, so we
> > > have Δx = 0.1 and Δt = 0.102949, and therefore we have the average velocity v =
> > > Δx/Δt = 0.971356.
> >
> > There is an error here.
>
> What is the error?
> > If I tell you the observable speeds are not the real speeds, you believe me.
> No, the speed dx/dt in terms of the coordinates x,t is a real speed, the distance traveled in the time traveled (in terms of x,t), which is the definition of velocity in terms of x,t. This is what would be measured by a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame.

A grid of rulers; you guys are really funny with your
real differently delusions.

[Mikko]

On 2022-11-04 12:32:05 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Relativists in general, unfortunately, are very arrogant, and don't
> even understand that sometimes they are outdone by me.
>
> This arrogance is of the order of the religious doctrine "We can't be
> wrong, and if we were wrong, it's not that asshole Doctor Hachel who
> will teach us".

Don't generalize too much, but it is true and obvious that you are so
arrogant. It wouldn't matter if you were right, but sometinmes you aren't.

In this group everyone is presumed ignorant and stupid until proven
otherwise.

Mikko

[Richard Hachel]

Not just in this group. I think the phenomenon is general, and I've always
had a hard time understanding why.

Many people questioned by this question that I asked them gave me the same
answer: "Richard, you do not consider human nature enough".

R.H.

[JanPB]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 9:21:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 04/11/2022 à 17:14, Mikko a écrit :
> > On 2022-11-04 12:32:05 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> >
> >> Relativists in general, unfortunately, are very arrogant, and don't
> >> even understand that sometimes they are outdone by me.
> >>
> >> This arrogance is of the order of the religious doctrine "We can't be
> >> wrong, and if we were wrong, it's not that asshole Doctor Hachel who
> >> will teach us".
> >
> > Don't generalize too much, but it is true and obvious that you are so
> > arrogant. It wouldn't matter if you were right, but sometinmes you aren't.
> >
> > In this group everyone is presumed ignorant and stupid until proven
> > otherwise.
> >
> > Mikko
> Not just in this group. I think the phenomenon is general, and I've always
> had a hard time understanding why.

It's just past experience. I've been on this group off and on since its
inception (around 1995 IIRC) and the fact is that about 99% or more of
the critics are uninformed, and 99% of those 99% are also arrogant like
small children. This has been very characteristic.

So, yes, your point is welk taken in the sense that because of that the
standard reaction to a "critic" has been strongly negative (call it a
case of "relativistic profiling" :-) ). But this approach is simply virtually
infallible. It's just the way the facts in the matter are.

> Many people questioned by this question that I asked them gave me the same
> answer: "Richard, you do not consider human nature enough".

Yes, there is a common emotional thread among almost all "critics" which
does resemble a common emotional thread found in almost all children.
It goes like this:

1. "X seems wrong to me",
2. "Therefore, it's wrong",
3. "And if hundreds of thousands of experts for more than 100 years
disagree, then they are wrong, I don't understand their proofs anyway
(which makes them wrong)",
4. "And I don't need to study X in order to know all of the above."

In other words, the very noticeable inability to face one's shortcomings is
both childlike and very characteristic.

--
Jan

[Stefan Russo]

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 9:21:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Not just in this group. I think the phenomenon is general, and I've
>> always had a hard time understanding why.
>
> It's just past experience. I've been on this group off and on since its
> inception (around 1995 IIRC) and the fact is that about 99% or more of
> the critics are uninformed, and 99% of those 99% are also arrogant like
> small children. This has been very characteristic.

try again. You find tons of errors in the mathematics of nasa gravitational
boost spaceship, but nothing in einstine. You are lying. At your age.

[JanPB]

What's "einstine"?

--
Jan

[Jim Pennino]

That is what one would expect as einstine is a 5 minute documentry video
directed by Eric Siegel in 1968.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
> I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995
> IIRC)

I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
:) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.

Personal note: sometime later a crackpot here got so incensed with my
debunking his claims that as a shareholder of AT&T he demanded that I be
terminated (I was using a Bell Labs email at the time). I learned later
that an executive 'in camera' meeting was held, to which I was not
invited, and in which David Ritchie (of UNIX and C fame) stood up for
me, explaining that everything I had said was mainstream physics. I was
not terminated, and only indirectly heard about that meeting, but did
get a non-AT&T email for use around here.

Tom Roberts

[JanPB]

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995
> > IIRC)
> I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
> Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
> dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
> only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
> :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
> crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
> was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.

I joined Usenet in 1985. The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did
not exist until mid-90s. What happened was that sci.physics at the time
would now and then be invaded by threads posted by anti-Einstein cranks
and they would invariably get VERY long and polluting sci.physics.
So someone decided to create sci.physics.relativity simply as a means
of deflecting the crank traffic from sci.physics. I remember not having
sci.physics.relativity and then having it as a new newsgroup. But maybe
I'm remembering it wrong. Not sure if there exists a database that contains
the full history with first posts to s.p.r.

> Personal note: sometime later a crackpot here got so incensed with my
> debunking his claims that as a shareholder of AT&T he demanded that I be
> terminated (I was using a Bell Labs email at the time).

I had a similar experience with Archimedes Plutonium (primo voto
Ludwig Pohlmann, secundo voto Ludwig van Logwig, tertio voto
Ludwig Plutonium) who e-mailed the execs at my then-employer
"alerting" them about me.

> I learned later
> that an executive 'in camera' meeting was held, to which I was not
> invited, and in which David Ritchie (of UNIX and C fame) stood up for
> me, explaining that everything I had said was mainstream physics. I was
> not terminated, and only indirectly heard about that meeting, but did
> get a non-AT&T email for use around here.

Sometimes one has to be careful with outright nuts.

--
Jan

[whodat]

On 11/5/2022 7:04 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
>>> I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995
>>> IIRC)
>> I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
>> Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
>> dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
>> only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
>> :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
>> crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
>> was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.
>
> I joined Usenet in 1985. The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did
> not exist until mid-90s. What happened was that sci.physics at the time
> would now and then be invaded by threads posted by anti-Einstein cranks
> and they would invariably get VERY long and polluting sci.physics.

The early 1980's was before the great renaming. The physics newsgroup
then was called "net.physics."

> So someone decided to create sci.physics.relativity simply as a means
> of deflecting the crank traffic from sci.physics. I remember not having
> sci.physics.relativity and then having it as a new newsgroup. But maybe
> I'm remembering it wrong. Not sure if there exists a database that contains
> the full history with first posts to s.p.r.
>
>> Personal note: sometime later a crackpot here got so incensed with my
>> debunking his claims that as a shareholder of AT&T he demanded that I be
>> terminated (I was using a Bell Labs email at the time).
>
> I had a similar experience with Archimedes Plutonium (primo voto
> Ludwig Pohlmann, secundo voto Ludwig van Logwig, tertio voto
> Ludwig Plutonium) who e-mailed the execs at my then-employer
> "alerting" them about me.
>
>> I learned later
>> that an executive 'in camera' meeting was held, to which I was not
>> invited, and in which David Ritchie (of UNIX and C fame) stood up for
>> me, explaining that everything I had said was mainstream physics. I was
>> not terminated, and only indirectly heard about that meeting, but did
>> get a non-AT&T email for use around here.
>
> Sometimes one has to be careful with outright nuts.

Hence my reveal my true identity.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:37:29 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 11/5/2022 7:04 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
> >>> I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995
> >>> IIRC)
> >> I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
> >> Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
> >> dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
> >> only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
> >> :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
> >> crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
> >> was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.
> >
> > I joined Usenet in 1985. The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did
> > not exist until mid-90s. What happened was that sci.physics at the time
> > would now and then be invaded by threads posted by anti-Einstein cranks
> > and they would invariably get VERY long and polluting sci.physics.
> The early 1980's was before the great renaming. The physics newsgroup
> then was called "net.physics."

Ah, I forgot about that. I was at a group net.audio back then.

--
Jan

[The Starmaker]

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995
> > > IIRC)
> > I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
> > Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
> > dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
> > only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
> > :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
> > crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
> > was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.
>
> I joined Usenet in 1985. The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did
> not exist until mid-90s.

Can yous people get your stories straight? sci.physics.relativity the
80's or 90's???? 1982 or 1995? One of yous is WRONG...

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

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995
> > > > IIRC)
> > > I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
> > > Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
> > > dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
> > > only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
> > > :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
> > > crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
> > > was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.
> >
> > I joined Usenet in 1985. The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did
> > not exist until mid-90s.
>
> Can yous people get your stories straight? sci.physics.relativity the
> 80's or 90's???? 1982 or 1995? One of yous is WRONG...

I suspect JanPB is WRONG since wayback machine only goes back to 1995-

https://web.archive.org/web/*/sci.physics.relativity


dat is as far jan's memory goes back...