Re: Langevin's paradox again

Le 17/07/2024 à 02:35, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 17/07/2024 à 02:14, Python a écrit :

Le 17/07/2024 à 02:11, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 17/07/2024 à 01:41, Python a écrit :

Le 17/07/2024 à 00:44, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>

You contradict yourself and the principle of Relativity on your
claims about accelerated/inertial twins. I'm not the only one
who pointed that to you. You are insanely egotist and stupid,
Richard. You should not be allowed to practice medicine in France
as you currently are.

>
But no my dear Jean-Pierre,
I am not contradicting myself, and indeed, after 40 years of reflection on the subject, I have achieved total mastery of RR on all these essential principles.
You know, my darling, everything did not fall from the sky, it took me thousands of hours of reflection to obtain fairly good scientific bases, and I thought I would never be able to to complete my personal mission: to understand at least two or three important things about the universe in its scientific, theological, philosophical whole.
It is also not excluded that I disappeared, nothing remains.
On the other hand, I have never stopped telling you, to you who is an ugly brat who doesn't want to understand anything, it is true that the RR contradicts itself on many things.
I have already given formal proof of this.
One of the best, incontestable proofs is the Langevin in apparent mode which is perfectly absurd if we take the contraction of lengths at face value, but the resolution of the problem offends human navel-gazing.
Human navel-gazing is such that if you reveal a disturbing truth to him, he will take, if he can, millennia to challenge it.
The truth (be careful, my darling) is that there is no contraction of distances by change of frame of reference, but on the contrary an expansion of distances.
This is what Poincaré says in his transformation, and this explains all the misunderstandings that have existed for 120 years.
You noticed that the quantity sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) of the transformation
of Poincaré-Lorentz is found in the denominator in x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
General dilatation, my dear Watson. Lorentz factor obliges.
Which also explains the 36 al that Stella sees traveling at 4c for 9 years.
No, no, I'm not contradicting myself.
It is not the same for physicists who are still fighting among themselves, because they have not understood the beauty, the clarity and the evidence of the theory stripped of its conceptual dust. Because for them again: ignorance is strength. But whose ignorance for whose strength?

>
Richard, you need to see a psychiatrist.

 Mais non.
Il y a simplement le fait que tu ne maitrises pas du tout la RR, et que la plupart des gens qui interviennent sur les forums mondiaux n'en savent pas beaucoup plus que toi.
 Tout cela n'est qu'une immense frime où chacun cache son impuissance sexuelle de peur d'effrayer les gonzesse.
Tu n'as jamais remarqué que dès que j'attrape un mec par les couilles, il se tire vite la queue entre les pattes, parce qu'il ne sait pas répondre, et que "si ça se voit, on va se moquer de lui".
 Mais encore ce jour, mon tendre chéri, je pose un problème tout simple.
 Une petite transfo de merde, du style M=[0,0,60,0) ----> M'= ?
 On donne v=0.8c.
 Ne ris pas Jean-Pierre, mais personne ne comprends même pas le problème.
 C'est pas pour y répondre, ils ne peuvent même pas tenter de répondre, parce qu'ils sont dans le noir tous, et que prendre le risque de répondre à un Richard HAchel, c'est montrer qu'on en sait moins que lui, et ça, c'est intolérable.
Un psychiatre... LOL... Nan mais je rêve.
 Tu sais que tu m'amuses, Jean-Pierre?
R.H.

 >> Richard, you need to see a psychiatrist.
 >
 > Mais non.
Oh yes, you do.