Re: Paul Anderson Claims to Save the Ether From the Null Result!

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 2:54:31 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 20/11/2024 à 01:08, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

Before Paul claims I've put words in his mouth consider that if one has
time dilation then one necessarily saves the ether. No matter what Paul
wants the time dilation for he gets an ether. This is all implicit in
his assertion that time dilation has been "empirically" proven.

>
I am surprised that no one pays any attention to what I have been saying
here for years.
Here, I have the impression that two peoples are fighting:
The Newtonian morons, who deny relativity; and the Einsteinian morons,
who
distort it by proposing a Minkowskian relativity that is really crazy
mathematically (mathematical absurdities), and physically (most of their
calculations will one day be shown to be experimentally false when we
can
verify what happens in accelerated frames of reference, rotating frames
of
reference and the elasticity of distances (very misunderstood Langevin
traveler).
>
I will answer the question, and as usual, we will put it under the
printer, and you will use it as toilet paper.
>
It does not matter: I am used to your whims and your stupidities.
>
Il n'y a pas d'éher, cela a déjà été expliqué cent fois.
>
Cela veut dire qu'il n'y a pas de référentiel privilégié.
>
Mais cela n'a rien à voir avec la dilatation des chronotropies (effet
Doppler interne réciproque).
>
Absolument rien à voir.
>
Une fois l'éther ôté, reste deux possibilités, et c'est sur ces deux
possibilités-là que tout se joue.
>
1. Il n'y a pas d'éther, et la notion de simultanéité est absolue.
2. Il n'y a pas d'éther, mais la notion de simultanéité est relative
car il existe une anisochronie universelle.
>
Si la simultanéité est absolue, il n'y a ni dilatation des mécanisme
interne des montres, ni élasticité des longueurs et des distances.
>
Si elle n'est pas absolue, il y a relativité de la simultanéité selon
la position des objets et relativité de la chronotropie selon la vitesse
des objets.
>
Je ne peux pas mieux dire.
>
Ceux qui tentent de me cracher dessus, de me ridiculiser, de me railler,
sont de parfaits crétins, de parfaits bouffons.
>
Ils me rappelle Charles Aznavour :
"Il faut savoir, garder la face,
sous la masque de tous les jours,
quand il ne reste que le pire,
dans une physique bête à pleurer"...
>
Chacun usant de conneries pour montrer qu'il est le plus malin.
>
Tout cela est détestable.
>
R.H.

TRANSLATED BY BABYLON: "There is no ether, this has already been
explained a hundred times. This means that there is no privileged
reference system. But this has nothing to do with the dilation of
chronotropies (reciprocal internal Doppler effect). Absolutely nothing
to see. Once the ether is removed, there are two possibilities, and it
is on these two possibilities that everything is at stake. 1. There is
no ether, and the notion of simultaneity is absolute. 2. There is no
ether, but the notion of simultaneity is relative because there is a
universal anisochronia. If simultaneity is absolute, there is no
expansion of the internal mechanisms of the watches, nor elasticity of
lengths and distances. If it is not absolute, there is relativity of
simultaneity according to the position of objects and relativity of
chronotropy according to the speed of objects. I can't say it better.
Those according to the speed of objects. I can't say it better. Those
who try to spit on me, to ridicule me, to mock me, are perfect morons,
perfect buffoons. They remind me of Charles Aznavour: "You have to know,
keep your face, under the mask of everyday life, when there is only the
worst left, in a physics that is stupid enough to cry"... Each one using
to show that he is the smartest. All this is detestable. "
My reply: If there is time dilation, that necessarily saves the ether,
as that is all that is needed.