[SR] Many language errors.

[Richard Hachel]

Il existe dans la théorie de la relativité, de nombreuses
incompréhensions, et de nombreuses erreurs de langage.

Les choses étant très mal définies.

Il y a deux erreurs que peut faire un guitariste : ne pas tendre assez sa
corde, ou la tendre trop.

S'il ne la tend pas assez, elle ne rend qu'un son sourd et désagréable.

S'il la tend trop, elle casse.

Il en va ainsi de la théorie de la relativité.

Il y a ceux qui n'y croient pas, et ils rendent un son sourd et
désagréable, et ceux qui y croient trop, et bousillent leur instrument
en tendant toutes les cordes trop fort.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________


There are in the theory of relativity, many misunderstandings, and many
errors of language.

Things are very poorly defined.

There are two mistakes a guitarist can make: not stretching his string
enough, or stretching it too much.

If he doesn't stretch it enough, it only makes a dull, unpleasant sound.

If he stretches it too much, it breaks.

So it is with the theory of relativity.

There are those who don't believe in it, and they sound dull and
unpleasant, and those who believe in it too much, and screw up their
instrument by straining all the strings too hard.



R.H.

[J. J. Lodder]

Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:

> There are in the theory of relativity, many misunderstandings, and many
> errors of language.

I know that you cannot believe this,
but real scientists don't care about errors of language.
All they care about is content.

And guess what: they don't have your 'misunderstandings',

Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Le 22/05/2022 à 16:17, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> I know that you cannot believe this,
> but real scientists don't care about errors of language.
> All they care about is content.
>
> And guess what: they don't have your 'misunderstandings',

I think you don't really understand what a human being is.

Scientists will never accept that we can take them back to their land.

They are human beings like many who read here.

If you ask a scientist to come and rub shoulders with me, everything is
bound to drift into hatred and horror.

I beg you to understand this.

The guy who did five years of study after the baccalaureate, and to whom
you come to put a pie in the mouth, I beg you to believe that he is not
happy.

I BEG YOU to make the effort to understand this.

Especially if it's a college professor or something.

He is "not happy".

If you ask a scientist for a little meeting with Richard Hachel (Hotel,
all expenses paid) he will laugh. I beg you to understand this. He will
howl with laughter and rub his hands thinking about the headlines in the
newspapers. "A scientist dismantles Richard Hachel in front of a packed
house".

Except that human filth exists (it's me). I am human filth personified.

I would only ask him one question, the same one I've been asking a
scientific community for decades. "If I'm so stupid, and you so smart, why
can't you explain to me clearly that in your house, 9 times 4 is 7.2,
while in my house, it's 36?"

There, everyone escapes.

Above all, don't believe Python when it spends its time convincing you
otherwise.

He is a liar of the worst kind.

Everyone has always run away from me.

Or a name.

A tiny name.

And I give up immediately.

And I admit that 9*4 is not 36.

That I was wrong in my relativistic calculations and concepts of the same
name.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 16:17:42 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>
> > There are in the theory of relativity, many misunderstandings, and many
> > errors of language.
> I know that you cannot believe this,
> but real scientists don't care about errors of language.

Especially about their own.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 22/05/2022 à 16:33, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> > There are in the theory of relativity, many misunderstandings, and many
>> > errors of language.
>> I know that you cannot believe this,
>> but real scientists don't care about errors of language.
>
> Especially about their own.

Well, I do care. I find that the clearer and more precise it is, the
better it is assimilated and acceptable.

Exemple : "It is the clock at rest that always indicates the shortest
duration".

It is both badly said, and at the same time false.

It's badly said because you have to say: "It's always the proper time that
is the shortest" since a clock at rest is in principle the one that looks
at the other, so it's bad said.

But in addition, it is false.

In certain situations, such as during a rapid approach, the proper time of
the watch observed in the distance is longer, I mean REALLY longer, than
the time noted by the observer.

A watch that comes close to me at 0.6c actually spins, ie REALLY twice as
fast. Three times faster if it approaches 0.8c.

So the idea is not only badly explained, but on certain points, it is
wrong.

It is obviously inadmissible for them, as it is inadmissible to think that
the Blessed Virgin was perhaps not so virgin as that.

Misunderstood and poorly explained notions, on the basis of truth (because
TLs are true) have become dogmas, and those who propagate them have become
mean.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 19:18:44 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 22/05/2022 à 16:33, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >> > There are in the theory of relativity, many misunderstandings, and many
> >> > errors of language.
> >> I know that you cannot believe this,
> >> but real scientists don't care about errors of language.
> >
> > Especially about their own.
> Well, I do care. I find that the clearer and more precise it is, the
> better it is assimilated and acceptable.
>
> Exemple : "It is the clock at rest that always indicates the shortest
> duration".

Maybe assimilated and acceptable, but bullshit anyway.
We have GPS now and we can test it directly.