From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was relativistic.
Even today, I very often see the formula m=mreC/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#) written on social media,
including by scientists.
According to the good Doctor Hachel, mass rColike charge or the nature of
a particlerCo does not change when the reference frame changes.
It might be a good idea to settle the matter once and for all with a touch
of humor:
"A hippopotamus doesn't turn into two hippopotamuses just because you make
it run very fast."

:))

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Richard, this is becoming tedious.

Yes, mass is normally treated today as invariant.

Yes, the old terminology "relativistic mass"

m_rel = gamma m

still appears here and there.

We have already been through this.

And your

p = m Vr

with

Vr = gamma v

is simply

p = gamma m v,

i.e. the standard relativistic momentum.

So there is no Hachel revolution here to discuss.


What is becoming rather conspicuous, however, is the timing.

Whenever one of your more substantial claims runs into trouble,
we suddenly get another triumphant lecture about "relativistic
mass", a point on which there is essentially no dispute.

Meanwhile:

9 * 4 = 36 still does not make 36 ly the simultaneous
Earth-Bella distance;

circular motion does not cease to be accelerated merely
because |v| is constant;

and RH still needs a general equation for proper time along
an arbitrary accelerated trajectory before we can compare
its predictions experimentally with SR.


So, yes:

the hippopotamus remains one hippopotamus.

Excellent.

Now that this major crisis of twentieth-century physics has been
settled for the fourth time, perhaps we can return to the claims
that were actually being tested.

The diversion is becoming a little too obvious.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 09/22/2026 05:13 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was relativistic.
Even today, I very often see the formula m=mreC/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#) written on social media,
including by scientists.
According to the good Doctor Hachel, mass rColike charge or the nature of
a particlerCo does not change when the reference frame changes.
It might be a good idea to settle the matter once and for all with a
touch of humor:
"A hippopotamus doesn't turn into two hippopotamuses just because you
make it run very fast."

:))

R.H.

Perhaps with "hops, leaps, and bounds" the hippopotamus may
appear arbitrarily large, or fast (and shimmering).


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 09/22/2026 06:02 AM, Python wrote:

Richard, this is becoming tedious.

Yes, mass is normally treated today as invariant.

Yes, the old terminology "relativistic mass"

m_rel = gamma m

still appears here and there.

We have already been through this.

And your

p = m Vr

with

Vr = gamma v

is simply

p = gamma m v,

i.e. the standard relativistic momentum.

So there is no Hachel revolution here to discuss.

What is becoming rather conspicuous, however, is the timing.

Whenever one of your more substantial claims runs into trouble,
we suddenly get another triumphant lecture about "relativistic
mass", a point on which there is essentially no dispute.

Meanwhile:

9 * 4 = 36 still does not make 36 ly the simultaneous
Earth-Bella distance;

circular motion does not cease to be accelerated merely
because |v| is constant;

and RH still needs a general equation for proper time along
an arbitrary accelerated trajectory before we can compare
its predictions experimentally with SR.

So, yes:

the hippopotamus remains one hippopotamus.

Excellent.

Now that this major crisis of twentieth-century physics has been
settled for the fourth time, perhaps we can return to the claims
that were actually being tested.

The diversion is becoming a little too obvious.

Einstein's "second mass/energy-equivalency formula" (c.f. "Out of
My Later Years") is about as well-known as the Desarguesian (or less).

The "E = mc^2" everyone knows isn't even the entire thing, only the
first-term as a truncation of a series of an expression in K.E.,
which immediately doesn't add up, or as Einstein puts it,
"relativity the theory is good to first-order",
then rather more quietly, "and, (cough cough), not beyond".

Point being Einstein makes pains to distinguish the linear
account and the rotational account, after making a philosophical
point that Newton wasn't to be considered "wrong" per se, then
about attacking Newton's mechanics, so that when later attacking
what would have been his own mechanics, it wasn't to be considered
"wrong" per se, merely of limited perspective, in a wider overall account.

Or, that's what he said and how he could've meant it.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 09/22/2026 06:10 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 09/22/2026 05:13 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was
relativistic.
Even today, I very often see the formula m=mreC/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#) written on >> social media,
including by scientists.
According to the good Doctor Hachel, mass rColike charge or the nature of
a particlerCo does not change when the reference frame changes.
It might be a good idea to settle the matter once and for all with a
touch of humor:
"A hippopotamus doesn't turn into two hippopotamuses just because you
make it run very fast."

:))

R.H.

Perhaps with "hops, leaps, and bounds" the hippopotamus may
appear arbitrarily large, or fast (and shimmering).

Adding to accounts of "rest-exchange-momentum" in effect,
college atheletics has banned "the somersault-shotput",
and still is somewhat at a loss about "the triple-jump",
with examples like "the balleton" and "getting some air".


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 22/09/2026 |a 15:02, Python a |-crit :

The diversion is becoming a little too obvious.

Mais non, mais non, ne t'inqui|?tes pas, je suis toujours l|a.

R.H.




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 22/09/2026 |a 15:10, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :

On 09/22/2026 05:13 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was
relativistic.
Even today, I very often see the formula m=mreC/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#) written on >> social media,
including by scientists.
According to the good Doctor Hachel, mass rColike charge or the nature of
a particlerCo does not change when the reference frame changes.
It might be a good idea to settle the matter once and for all with a
touch of humor:
"A hippopotamus doesn't turn into two hippopotamuses just because you
make it run very fast."

:))

R.H.

Perhaps with "hops, leaps, and bounds" the hippopotamus may
appear arbitrarily large, or fast (and shimmering).

I had an idea for breeding hippos in zoos.
You make them run faster by hitting them with a stick.
Python calculated privately that if you make a hippo run fast enough to
reach a speed of 1.414crCopop!rCoit splits into two hippos.
I calculated that if you did this every day, thanks to the laws of
exponential doubling, yourCOd quickly end up with 128 hippos (in just a
week).
But IrCOm worried about running into trouble with the animal protection society. TheyrCOd say werCOre hitting the animals.
What do you think?

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Python calculated privately that if you make a hippo run fast
enough to reach a speed of 1.414crCopop!rCoit splits into two hippos.

I calculated nothing of the sort, privately or otherwise.

And absolutely nothing I wrote says that mass doubles, let alone
that a hippopotamus splits into two hippopotamuses.

Quite the contrary: I have just spent several posts explaining
that

p = m Vr = gamma m Vo

uses invariant mass m.

So your joke requires you to invent something I supposedly said,
attribute to me a concept I explicitly rejected, and then make
fun of your own invention.

That's usually called a straw man.


And the timing is becoming rather conspicuous.

We were discussing:

- your claim that 36 ly is a simultaneous distance;

- your attribution of that claim to Poincare;

- your claim that circular motion with constant |v| is somehow
not really accelerated;

- and the still incomplete general formulation of RH.

Suddenly: exploding hippopotamuses.

By all means make jokes, Richard.

But if the joke requires inventing statements for your opponent,
it isn't an argument.

It is a fabrication and a false attribution.

Or, in shorter English:

you made it up.

Now perhaps we can send the hippopotamuses back to the zoo and
return to the equations you were defending.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 09/22/2026 07:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 22/09/2026 |a 15:10, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :

On 09/22/2026 05:13 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was
relativistic.
Even today, I very often see the formula m=mreC/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#) written on >>> social media,
including by scientists.
According to the good Doctor Hachel, mass rColike charge or the nature of >>> a particlerCo does not change when the reference frame changes.
It might be a good idea to settle the matter once and for all with a
touch of humor:
"A hippopotamus doesn't turn into two hippopotamuses just because you
make it run very fast."

:))

R.H.

Perhaps with "hops, leaps, and bounds" the hippopotamus may
appear arbitrarily large, or fast (and shimmering).

I had an idea for breeding hippos in zoos.
You make them run faster by hitting them with a stick.
Python calculated privately that if you make a hippo run fast enough to
reach a speed of 1.414crCopop!rCoit splits into two hippos.
I calculated that if you did this every day, thanks to the laws of exponential doubling, yourCOd quickly end up with 128 hippos (in just a week).
But IrCOm worried about running into trouble with the animal protection society. TheyrCOd say werCOre hitting the animals.
What do you think?

R.H.

I think hippos are large, aquatically-adapted swine.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:

Le 22/09/2026 |a 15:10, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :

On 09/22/2026 05:13 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was
relativistic.
Even today, I very often see the formula m=m?/sqrt(1-v?/c?) written on
social media,
including by scientists.
According to the good Doctor Hachel, mass rColike charge or the nature of >> a particlerCo does not change when the reference frame changes.
It might be a good idea to settle the matter once and for all with a
touch of humor:
"A hippopotamus doesn't turn into two hippopotamuses just because you
make it run very fast."

:))

R.H.

Perhaps with "hops, leaps, and bounds" the hippopotamus may
appear arbitrarily large, or fast (and shimmering).

I had an idea for breeding hippos in zoos.
You make them run faster by hitting them with a stick.
Python calculated privately that if you make a hippo run fast enough to
reach a speed of 1.414crCopop!rCoit splits into two hippos.
I calculated that if you did this every day, thanks to the laws of exponential doubling, you'd quickly end up with 128 hippos (in just a
week).
But I'm worried about running into trouble with the animal protection society. They'd say we're hitting the animals.
What do you think?

That you are a complete 100% proof idiot?

Jan
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 09/22/2026 11:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:

Le 22/09/2026 |a 15:10, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :

On 09/22/2026 05:13 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was
relativistic.
Even today, I very often see the formula m=m?/sqrt(1-v?/c?) written on >>>> social media,
including by scientists.
According to the good Doctor Hachel, mass rColike charge or the nature of >>>> a particlerCo does not change when the reference frame changes.
It might be a good idea to settle the matter once and for all with a
touch of humor:
"A hippopotamus doesn't turn into two hippopotamuses just because you
make it run very fast."

:))

R.H.

Perhaps with "hops, leaps, and bounds" the hippopotamus may
appear arbitrarily large, or fast (and shimmering).

I had an idea for breeding hippos in zoos.
You make them run faster by hitting them with a stick.
Python calculated privately that if you make a hippo run fast enough to
reach a speed of 1.414crCopop!rCoit splits into two hippos.
I calculated that if you did this every day, thanks to the laws of
exponential doubling, you'd quickly end up with 128 hippos (in just a
week).
But I'm worried about running into trouble with the animal protection
society. They'd say we're hitting the animals.
What do you think?

That you are a complete 100% proof idiot?

Jan

You mean 200 proof?

That 100 proof burns is another sort of example
of "spurious factors of 2".



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:

But was the hippo properly vacuumed?

Jan



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

On 09/22/2026 11:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:

Le 22/09/2026 |a 15:10, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :

On 09/22/2026 05:13 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was
relativistic.
Even today, I very often see the formula m=m?/sqrt(1-v?/c?) written on >>>> social media,
including by scientists.
According to the good Doctor Hachel, mass rColike charge or the nature of
a particlerCo does not change when the reference frame changes.
It might be a good idea to settle the matter once and for all with a >>>> touch of humor:
"A hippopotamus doesn't turn into two hippopotamuses just because you >>>> make it run very fast."

:))

R.H.

Perhaps with "hops, leaps, and bounds" the hippopotamus may
appear arbitrarily large, or fast (and shimmering).

I had an idea for breeding hippos in zoos.
You make them run faster by hitting them with a stick.
Python calculated privately that if you make a hippo run fast enough to
reach a speed of 1.414crCopop!rCoit splits into two hippos.
I calculated that if you did this every day, thanks to the laws of
exponential doubling, you'd quickly end up with 128 hippos (in just a
week).
But I'm worried about running into trouble with the animal protection
society. They'd say we're hitting the animals.
What do you think?

That you are a complete 100% proof idiot?

Jan

You mean 200 proof?

That 100 proof burns is another sort of example
of "spurious factors of 2".

No one hundred percent will do,

Jan
--
THE FINAL TOUCH
Portrait of nobody in particular

Idiots are really
one hundred per cent
when they are also
intelligent. (Piet Hein)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was relativistic.

1. What do you mean by that?
2. Cite evidence.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 24/09/2026 |a 18:46, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit :

Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was
relativistic.

1. What do you mean by that?
2. Cite evidence.

I don't want to answer that question.

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 24/09/2026 |a 18:46, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit :

Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was
relativistic.

1. What do you mean by that?
2. Cite evidence.

I don't want to answer that question.

:-D
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 09/24/2026 10:49 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 24/09/2026 |a 18:46, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit :

Richard Hachel wrote:

Back in 1986, some physicists believed that the concept of mass was
relativistic.

1. What do you mean by that?
2. Cite evidence.

I don't want to answer that question.

R.H.

That's at least as old as "vortices theory" that mass is a
configuration of energy, "springs" it once was when that
was the metaphor, then "relativistic mass" has always been
a concept after GR, then there's "white holes" for example
(as what "atoms" with their "mass" are about "1 AMU"),
anyways reductionism is sort of living in a bubble.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2