Re: A definition of "when"

Le 20/09/2024 à 17:22, Python a écrit :

Le 20/09/2024 à 04:08, Richard Hachel  a écrit :

Le 19/09/2024 à 22:59, Python a écrit :

Le 19/09/2024 à 22:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

 

crack·​pot ˈkrak-ˌpät plural crackpots

  Bon t'arrêtes tes conneries?
  Je te signale que je n'ai toujours rien compris de ce que tu dis ici.   <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?XVNtp10sk7WXNag-AMA_Rou-STM@jntp/Data.Media:1>

 Ce n'est pas de ma faute si tu es con comme un balai.
 Not my fault if you're dumb as a rock.

It never occurred to you, because you are arrogant, that maybe you are the one who is stupid.
You do not understand, it seems, the notion of the relativistic Doppler effect,
but boastful as a peacock, you have managed to convince yourself
of being even more right against "that scumbag Dr. Hachel".
I have repeated this to you many times in the void.
Very often in the face of your madness, I have said "you can't change a man", and when I answer you, it has been a long time since I no longer answer you directly, but to the other contributors likely to read; in order to correct your fantasies and lead them to think about the theory of special relativity in an independent and positive way.
I do not understand the meaning of your sentence, and I come to wonder (Biden effect), if you yourself understand anything about it.
I will be happy to receive recommendations from other posters who are more knowledgeable than me, and who will explain to me what they can understand from the mumble that you wrote.
The more I rub my eyes, the less I understand your sentence, and even less why: "there is no reason that distance traveled = apparent speed x elapsed proper time."
R.H.