Re: [SR] Why?

W dniu 20.06.2024 o 00:21, Richard Hachel pisze:

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.

A relativistic idiot? Harrie? Consistent?
A good joke.

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

Of course he can.