Le 30/09/2023 à 09:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of
synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Nonsense.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
The primum movens of the theory of relativity is the notion of the
relativity of simultaneity.
What is particularly astonishing is that all of humanity seems to have
missed this obvious fact.
Physicists have understood very well one of the visible consequences experimentally of this phenomenon, that is to say the notion of relativity
of chronotropy by change of inertial frame of reference.
But NOT the primum movens, although much simpler to understand.
This incomprehension calls for others: the Langevin paradox which they
have never been able to really resolve (all the descriptions proposed are fakes), the incredible confusions of the equations proposed in the
accelerated relativistic frames of reference, etc...
For years I have been advising physicists to take baby steps in their
concepts and be careful about what they say.
In vain...
The way they think they can synchronize their clocks is one of the
greatest intellectual catastrophes in human history.
I remind you that in the end, with all these deviations we end up with
false, stupid or contradictory equations.
Example of a very important equation, but completely unknown to physicists because of this blindness that I deplore. It concerns the instantaneous observable speed (Voi) of an accelerated body as a function of its own and constant acceleration and the distance traveled.
Voi/c = [1+c²/ax]^(-1/2)
This is much less than physicists assume.
Paul B. Andersen, who is not a moron, who is not a bandit, who is not a
thug, will respond with absolute sincerity:
"But no! We must find the time observable at point B, subtract the time observable at point A, and set Vo=AB/To2-To1"
We then find a much more impressive speed than what I am proposing.
The problem is that no one sees the terrible stumbling blocks of
physicists.
They thoughtlessly subtract T01 from To2 as if it were self-evident.
Except that To1 is measured by one watch, and To2 is measured by another, placed elsewhere.
So we subtract a carrot from a turnip.
We then obtain very fanciful instantaneous speeds, as we also obtain very fanciful clean times.
I recall that the instantaneous speed of a rocket arriving at Tau Ceti in
the problem of the same name is Vo=0.980c.
And not 0.997c.
I remind you that the passenger's life time will be 4,776 years, and not
3,564 years.
These predictive differences are colossal, and it is urgent to fully
understand their causes, and to verify experimentally that everything I
say is true.
R.H.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)