Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Absolute Insanity
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 04:00:56 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <7f1ab22b22cdcea09fad657647ab1c92@www.novabbs.com>
References: <2e4cf934a593d0e19854a5da168560c1@www.novabbs.com> <nB7aRJLaUqJ28rWlq1Q30arOW-o@jntp> <9c6465bd694526de59b67b0910ccf4a1@www.novabbs.com> <R0JHJcwGHe9_LJmn8sD9clNY-Rw@jntp> <17cd5232b9b09e47$238031$261710$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <R6znaLrGLzGFMA_J9zUCgBswivc@jntp> <17cd6af28aebced8$301165$253407$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <S_7TAnZOOQo9uB-CpYEDWkML0_Y@jntp> <e6c9abd71a4804bcd98314adf1c46413@www.novabbs.com> <ZmAI6CocHA2gGSuBaodqo8k_oY8@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="531378"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$nVp8XkcGYo0x548r.FaI0uTKBJhH0lEEADt6BLiQBSJ0aYw4YvC2u
Bytes: 2743
Lines: 42

Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 08/05/2024 à 21:41, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> >
> > Unfortunately, Dr. Hachel has no scientific knowledge. 
>
>  You lies.

The good doctor is forgetting his many velocities that he has
invented out of vacuum.  Those aren't scientific.

> > For example, he proposed E = mc^2/[sqrt](1 + v^2/c^2)
>
>  You lies.

Sorry, I inadvertantly left off the square root factor.  But
the good doctor is forgetting that he claimed gamma should be
1/sqrt(1 + v^2/c^2), n'est-ce pas?

>  I would like to discuss with you, but I would like frank discussions, 
> discussions where we lie.

You want lying discussions, then?

> Even Python, who doesn't like me at all (to say the least, lies less than 
> you).
>
> ....
>
> Hence the question: why are you lying?

> R.H.

As the good doctor should realize, he jumped to an invalid conclusion, not
recognizing that my error in presenting the (1 + v^2/c^2) without the sqrt
was a reference to his own assertion, which scientists say is sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
rather than his.

I offered to show the good doctor how to derive the correct term rather than
his term which has no basis whatever, but he declined by ignoring the offer.
From this I concluded that he was not in the least interested in having
a "frank discussion."  I fear he seems to be just like all the other kooks who
frequent these boards.