Re: [SR] Why?

Richard Hachel wrote:

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.
You cannot both contradict my equations, and then say that, poorly defined, you do not understand their meaning.

R.H.

You, sir, are being intentionally obtuse.  Whether I am consistent
or not, the fact is that you have now twice refused to define your
terms.  Wanna go for three or do you want to be a reasonable human
being?