Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <Ioqv-kjMkurXg5wgjWCVAfjII5o@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Relativity is a pseudoscience II. The Hafele-Keating HOAX,
References: <dad338831baa98f3eb1ca50452fd9401@www.novabbs.com> <97c2c8397e3438c708a9737638c6400b@www.novabbs.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: 9dTftvptAQPXCSknm3lqGdJV9CA
JNTP-ThreadID: dad338831baa98f3eb1ca50452fd9401@www.novabbs.com
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Ioqv-kjMkurXg5wgjWCVAfjII5o@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 24 12:25:43 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-09-12T12:25:43Z/9019472"; posting-account="4@nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid>
Bytes: 4713
Lines: 76

Le 12/09/2024 à 05:03, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> Mr. Hertz: It's hard to see any value in such an experiment. What I
> found especially absurd was the finding of time dilation and time
> contraction. Logic is enough to understand time dilation is a
> self-contradictory absurdity—junk science.

No, the notions of length contraction or time dilation are not 
absurdities.
We can now speak, in light of the experiments, of physical realities.
I have never stopped explaining, and explaining it clearly, that the 
problem comes from a misunderstanding of the subject by the highest 
physicists themselves, not from what is happening in the physical reality 
of the world.
It is then quite obvious, and physicists are ALL at fault when they deny 
it, that what they are stating IS absurd and false, and not what they 
should be stating.
Physicists are like a bad bow designer, who throws arrows "not too badly", 
and who can hit a target
once out of two times on average. So they are happy with their bow.

They start saying that it is normal, because there is a law of 
uncertainty,
that a bow can never, on average, make you hit the target more than once 
out of two.

This is also the theory of Jean-Pierre Messager, who finds RR very good, 
and who howls with laughter the day that Doctor Hachel (blessed be he) 
says that he, with a bow of his design, you hit the target every time.

This idea is beyond him. It is no longer in agreement with his religious 
belief.

One of the problems of relativistic physicists is that they do not go far 
enough in relativistic extravagance. They limit themselves, pettily, to 
the fixed contraction of the lengths of moving objects, and to their time 
dilation (their time seems to turn less quickly).

So the opposite is true: it is because they are not extravagant enough 
that their doctrine becomes false and they are mocked by the "cranks".

It is indeed obvious that things said as they say them are absurd: two 
travelers cannot become younger than each other.

There is necessarily, on their part, an educational responsibility in 
their way of considering things in this way, and of not wanting to be more 
precise and clear.

Worse, when Doctor Hachel speaks about it (he is much better than Einstein 
and Poincaré on this, and he explains things much better) he is spat on, 
human madness always being there.

No. It is the terms and concepts that are imprecise. Because everything is 
badly said. From there come all the misunderstandings, the errors, then 
the hatreds.

We should say: "There is a reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies".
And not "There is a reciprocal dilation of time", which is absurd, and 
forces the student to fill the stupidity of the concept with a "time-gap" 
dust under the carpet.

We should say: "There is an elasticity of lengths and distances" and not
"there is a fixed contraction in the reference frame of type l'=g.l

And so on for many things.

So, we should not say either: "the theory is false".

We should say "they all speak falsely about it".

Their experiences do not deceive them. It is their lack of understanding 
of things that deceives them.

"When you cut off a dog's four legs, it no longer comes to eat when you 
call it, THEREFORE it becomes deaf".

R.H.