| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<17da9b5d67a0494c$266526$441546$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 06:17:15 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [SR] Why? Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <LD4K6BjN8LU7EyULcWktoQOIq38@jntp> <a9ce6a08d87164cd99e9d1b296a2fcfe@www.novabbs.com> <RPvLJWuw8z32lAq2KSr5n_u6nII@jntp> <6bba68b5b45c50bfb204d0a6b94c3783@www.novabbs.com> <DU40c8UoZ5gkz_rdkPnV2eRAzAg@jntp> Content-Language: pl From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> In-Reply-To: <DU40c8UoZ5gkz_rdkPnV2eRAzAg@jntp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 54 Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 04:17:13 +0000 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17da9b5d67a0494c$266526$441546$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> X-Received-Bytes: 2668 Bytes: 2795 W dniu 20.06.2024 o 00:21, Richard Hachel pisze: > Le 20/06/2024 à 00:03, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >> Richard Hachel wrote: >> >>> Le 19/06/2024 à 20:55, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >>> > Richard Hachel wrote: >>> > > >>> > > One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity, > > >>> To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of >>> science, >>> > > >> will however pose a small problem for a few months to the >>> greatest > > theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel. >>> > > Hachel failed to define his terms, so that's neither fundamental nor >>> > beautiful. >>> > > > A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformly >>> > > accelerated frames of reference, because if we set >>> x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr) >>> > > it no longer works. >>> > > If the first equation is relativistic, the second surely is not. >>> >>> It is. >> >> Nope. You still haven't defined your terms. Therefore, your thesis is >> void. >> >>> Je n'ai pas écrit: >>> x=(1/2)a.To²+Vo.To >>> >>> but: >>> x=(1/2).a.Tr²+Vr.Tr >>> >>> Cette dernière équation est relativiste. >> >> Nope. >> >>> Mais j'ai précisé qu'elle était relativiste, mais fausse. >>> >>> Et j'ai demandé si on comprenait pourquoi? >>> >>> R.H. >> >> I understand that you are full of baloney since you refuse to >> define what To, Vo, Tr, Vr and a mean. > > Sir, sir, I beg you to be consistent. A relativistic idiot? Harrie? Consistent? A good joke. > You cannot both contradict my equations, and then say that, poorly > defined, you do not understand their meaning. Of course he can.