The Traveler of Tau Ceti
The Tau Ceti Traveler is a relativistic problem imagined by theorist
Richard Hachel to describe what would happen to a traveler leaving to
join Tau Ceti in accelerated mode.
We assume that the Sun-Tau Ceti system is stationary.
We set x=12 light years.
Thanks to new technology, we use a comfortable acceleration of a=10m/s² (a=1.052ly/y²).
At the start, we start all the watches. The terrestrial time is noted
To=0, the rocket's own time is noted τ=0.
The problem consists first of determining what the travel time will be
for the traveler, and what will be the observable times To (in the terrestrial reference frame) and apparent Tapp (what we see in a
powerful telescope) noted by the sedentary observer.
The problem then consists of determining the instantaneous observable velocity (Voi) at the moment when the rocket will cross Tau Ceti, and
its instantaneous acceleration measured in the terrestrial reference
frame.
Finally, to determine, while we know that the rocket will be 12 light years
from the earth at this instant, how far the earth will be from the
rocket in the rocket's frame of reference.
The Traveler of Tau Ceti
The Tau Ceti Traveler is a relativistic problem imagined by theorist
Richard Hachel to describe what would happen to a traveler leaving to
join Tau Ceti in accelerated mode.
We assume that the Sun-Tau Ceti system is stationary.
We set x=12 light years.
Thanks to new technology, we use a comfortable acceleration of a=10m/s² (a=1.052ly/y²).
At the start, we start all the watches. The terrestrial time is noted
To=0, the rocket's own time is noted τ=0.
The problem consists first of determining what the travel time will be
for the traveler, and what will be the observable times To (in the terrestrial reference frame) and apparent Tapp (what we see in a
powerful telescope) noted by the sedentary observer.
The problem then consists of determining the instantaneous observable velocity (Voi) at the moment when the rocket will cross Tau Ceti,
and
its instantaneous acceleration measured in the terrestrial reference frame.
Finally, to determine, while we know that the rocket will be 12 light
years from the earth at this instant, how far the earth will be from the rocket in the rocket's frame of reference.
The problem then consists of determining the instantaneous observable
velocity (Voi) at the moment when the rocket will cross Tau Ceti,
What's the point with inventing an apparent (not real)
"observable velocity" which is less than c when you know
that the real velocity according to your theory is > c?
and
its instantaneous acceleration measured in the terrestrial reference frame.
The coordinate acceleration in the terrestrial frame is obviously a.
You have in another posting said that the traveller's clock
would show τ = √(2⋅d/a) = 4.7764 y ,
and the speed relative to
Tau Ceti would be Vr = a⋅t = 5.0279 ly/y when she passes the star.
Since it is experimentally confirmed that the speed relative
to the star never can exceed c, the theory you have used
to arrive at these predictions is obviously falsified.
The "theory" is obviously Newtonian mechanics with Galilean relativity.
The acceleration of the rocket is a in the rocket's frame of reference,
and it will always be the same as the rocket progresses.
Breathe, breathe out, breathe...
It's so obvious that I wonder how you can argue with it.
Imagine your rocket at rest in a frame of reference Vo=0.6c, and another
at rest in a frame of reference Vo=0.8c, accelerate the two rockets
according to a=10m/s².
There is NO difference. There is no absolute reference.
It comes from this that whatever the instantaneous speed of the rocket,
it is at rest in this frame of reference whatever the speed reached.
Always, and for itself, it will accelerate with a constant acceleration
in the frame of reference where it will be found.
It is only for the terrestrial observer that the acceleration will be relative and that the rocket will appear to accelerate less and less
quickly (it will never exceed Vo=c).
Consider an inertial observer in space.
She has instruments like clocks and telescopes and computers,
so she can measure the speed of a passing rocket relative
to herself.
Please don't say that this in principle is impossible in the real world.
Eleven such observers (O_0 ..O_10) are stationary relative to each
other, and are arranged along a straight line with 1 light year
between them.
A rocket which is accelerating at the constant proper acceleration
a = 1 c per year is instantly at rest relative to O_0.
The rocket is moving along a line parallel to the line of observers.
c = 1 light year per year.
Please show what you think the observers O_1 to O_10 would
measure the speed of the rocket to be relative to themselves.
Paul
Den 19.03.2024 21:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
The acceleration of the rocket is a in the rocket's frame of
reference, and it will always be the same as the rocket progresses.
Breathe, breathe out, breathe...
It's so obvious that I wonder how you can argue with it.
Imagine your rocket at rest in a frame of reference Vo=0.6c, and
another at rest in a frame of reference Vo=0.8c, accelerate the two
rockets according to a=10m/s².
There is NO difference. There is no absolute reference.
It comes from this that whatever the instantaneous speed of the
rocket, it is at rest in this frame of reference whatever the speed
reached.
Always, and for itself, it will accelerate with a constant
acceleration in the frame of reference where it will be found.
It is only for the terrestrial observer that the acceleration will be
relative and that the rocket will appear to accelerate less and less
quickly (it will never exceed Vo=c).
Consider an inertial observer in space.
She has instruments like clocks and telescopes and computers,
Le 20/03/2024 à 20:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Consider an inertial observer in space.
She has instruments like clocks and telescopes and computers,
so she can measure the speed of a passing rocket relative
to herself.
Please don't say that this in principle is impossible in the real world.
Eleven such observers (O_0 ..O_10) are stationary relative to each
other, and are arranged along a straight line with 1 light year
between them.
A rocket which is accelerating at the constant proper acceleration
a = 1 c per year is instantly at rest relative to O_0.
The rocket is moving along a line parallel to the line of observers.
c = 1 light year per year.
Please show what you think the observers O_1 to O_10 would
measure the speed of the rocket to be relative to themselves.
The answers I can give you are very simple as long as you understand correctly what I am saying.
But I repeat again and again, observable speeds are not real speeds.
This is very important to understand, because you will realize that
things will logically start to go wrong.
If you use real speeds (Vr) you will no longer have any problems, and
the equations will remain both simple and true.
If you use traditional observable velocities (v or Vo)
you will notice that the observable speeds can be different for various observers present in the same frame of reference. Which may seem absurd
if we do not understand that, precisely, these speeds are not real but a distortion of what is real.
I can easily give you all the equations you need.
Here you are asking me what is the instantaneous observable velocity for
each point placed on the path as the rocket passes in front of it.
We have :
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)
The observers measure obviously the real speed of the rocket!
The observers inhabit the real world, not Wonderland.
Or generally:
You claim that the speed of an object in an inertial frame
may be several times the speed of light, but will always be
measured to be less than c.
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You claim that the speed of an object in an inertial frame
may be several times the speed of light, but will always be
measured to be less than c.
It's not just that I claim it, it's that it's logical, coherent, mathematical.
Already forty years ago, I gave the five basic equations (hundreds will follow) of SR.
To²=Tr²+Et²
To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You claim that the speed of an object in an inertial frame
may be several times the speed of light, but will always be
measured to be less than c.
It's not just that I claim it, it's that it's logical, coherent,
mathematical.
Already forty years ago, I gave the five basic equations (hundreds will
follow) of SR.
To²=Tr²+Et²
To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
In the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] at Cern the measured speed
of the protons is Vo = 0.9999999896⋅c
The circumference of the LHC and the time to go around
the circuit are precisely known.
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You claim that the speed of an object in an inertial frame
may be several times the speed of light, but will always be
measured to be less than c.
It's not just that I claim it, it's that it's logical, coherent,
mathematical.
Already forty years ago, I gave the five basic equations (hundreds
will follow) of SR.
To²=Tr²+Et²
To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
In the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] at Cern the measured speed
of the protons is Vo = 0.9999999896⋅c
The circumference of the LHC and the time to go around
the circuit are precisely known.
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You claim that the speed of an object in an inertial frame
may be several times the speed of light, but will always be
measured to be less than c.
It's not just that I claim it, it's that it's logical, coherent,
mathematical.
Already forty years ago, I gave the five basic equations (hundreds
will follow) of SR.
To²=Tr²+Et²
To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
In the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] at Cern the measured speed
of the protons is Vo = 0.9999999896⋅c
The circumference of the LHC and the time to go around
the circuit are precisely known.
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Since it is you, Doctor Richard Hachel, i will assume you are serious. (Nobody but you could seriously make such a ridiculous claim.)
You are obviously ignorant of how a synchrotron works.
The protons in the LHC are moving around a ring with
circumference 26659 m. The ring consist of straight
stretches and bends. In the straight stretches there
are eight RF-cavities which accelerate the protons.
In the bends there are magnets which make the path of
the protons bent. The protons will radiate some of their
kinetic energy as synchrotron radiation (light with a special
spectrum) in the bends, and when the synchrotron is in steady
state at peak power, the energy gained in the RF-cavities will
be lost in the bends.
In a RF-cavity there is an electric field which is changing
direction sinusoidally all the time. The protons are moving in
bunches, and a bunch must be at a RF-cavity exactly at the time
when the electric field is at peak value in the right direction.
Since there are many (N) bunches in the ring, and each bunch are
going around the ring many times (M) per second, the frequency
of the RF-field in the RF-cavity must be a multiple of N x M Hz.
The nominal frequency is 400.8 MHz, but this is finely tuned
depending on the speed of the protons.
The point is that the speed of the protons is very precisely known,
and the measured and real speed of the protons is the same.
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D
But maybe you were joking.
In that case you had me!
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D
But maybe you were joking.
In that case you had me!
On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ringIt appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D
But maybe you were joking.
In that case you had me!
"rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein velocity addition formula.
Le 27/03/2024 à 18:07, Volney a écrit :
On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:It appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D
But maybe you were joking.
In that case you had me!
"rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein
velocity addition formula.
It is not even that, it is worse, far worse.
Le 27/03/2024 à 18:07, Volney a écrit :
On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:It appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D
But maybe you were joking.
In that case you had me!
"rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein
velocity addition formula.
It is not even that, it is worse, far worse.
On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
It appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
"rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein velocity addition formula.
Le 27/03/2024 à 23:03, Python a écrit :
Le 27/03/2024 à 18:07, Volney a écrit :
On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:It appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D >>>>
But maybe you were joking.
In that case you had me!
"rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein
velocity addition formula.
It is not even that, it is worse, far worse.
Je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ton intervention.
J'attends toujours tes excuses pour ton comportement stupide sur le description du voyageur de Langevin en vitesses apparentes, et pourquoi
la formule Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) ne fonctionne que pour l'aller et pas
pour le retour.
Le 27/03/2024 à 13:24, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You claim that the speed of an object in an inertial frame
may be several times the speed of light, but will always be
measured to be less than c.
It's not just that I claim it, it's that it's logical, coherent,
mathematical.
The "Hachel theory" has nothing to do with SR.
Already forty years ago, I gave the five basic equations (hundreds
will follow) of SR
To²=Tr²+Et²
To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
In the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] at Cern the measured speed
of the protons is Vo = 0.9999999896⋅c
The circumference of the LHC and the time to go around
the circuit are precisely known.
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Since it is you, Doctor Richard Hachel, i will assume you are serious.
(Nobody but you could seriously make such a ridiculous claim.)
You are obviously ignorant of how a synchrotron works.
The protons in the LHC are moving around a ring with
circumference 26659 m. The ring consist of straight
stretches and bends. In the straight stretches there
are eight RF-cavities which accelerate the protons.
In the bends there are magnets which make the path of
the protons bent. The protons will radiate some of their
kinetic energy as synchrotron radiation (light with a special
spectrum) in the bends, and when the synchrotron is in steady
state at peak power, the energy gained in the RF-cavities will
be lost in the bends.
In a RF-cavity there is an electric field which is changing
direction sinusoidally all the time. The protons are moving in
bunches, and a bunch must be at a RF-cavity exactly at the time
when the electric field is at peak value in the right direction.
Since there are many (N) bunches in the ring, and each bunch are
going around the ring many times (M) per second, the frequency
of the RF-field in the RF-cavity must be a multiple of N x M Hz.
The nominal frequency is 400.8 MHz, but this is finely tuned
depending on the speed of the protons.
The point is that the speed of the protons is very precisely known,
and the measured and real speed of the protons is the same.
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D
But maybe you were joking.
In that case you had me!
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed (useful
but false).
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
They tell me no.
I tell them that to be consistent you have to measure things with a
single watch, and that measuring the departure of the proton and the
arrival of the proton with two different watches (in this case, the lab
watch that counts the revolutions is TWO watches) can only lead to
measuring speeds incredibly lower than reality.
Only the proton itself has the correct watch, because it, in its frame
of reference, accelerated or not, is invariant.
Now, if we want to know the real speed of the proton, we must know its momentum in an instant of its journey.
Physicists will necessarily find p=m.Vr, and not p=m.Vo.
I won't apologize
I won't apologize
Sorry Richard. Your "theory" is utter nonsense.
But you better stay in Wonderland where you are free
to make up how protons and other objects behave.
Learning something about the real world and realizing
that what you have believed for 40 years is nonsense
would probably kill you.
Physicists measure the momentum to be m⋅v⋅γ
and the energy to be m⋅c²⋅γ
where v is the speed and γ = 1/√(1−v²/c²).
Exactly as predicted by SR.
If you had read what I told you, you would have known
that the speed of the protons is measured with one clock,
namely the frequency of the RF-field in the RF-cavites.
The protons are accelerated by this field, and if the field
isn't at peak value in the right direction when the proton
is in a cavity, the Accelerator wouldn't work. So the time
between each time a proton is in a certain cavity is known
with extreme precision, and the circumference of the ring
is obviously precisely known.
So you see, the speed is close to c, but will never exceed c.
To believe that a proton in an accelerator move thousands
of times faster than the speed of light is beyond ignorance.
Any sane person who know what a proton is, must understand
that you can't make a proton go around a 27 km long ring if
you do not know _exactly_ how protons behave in electric and
magnetic fields.
No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
_exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.
Le 27/03/2024 à 17:07, Volney a écrit :
On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
It appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
"rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein
velocity addition formula.
Your answer is very interesting, I will just modify it slightly.
You say that for Doctor Hachel the notion of real speed is not a speed.
Of course yes, and it's even the only consistent speed.
This is the usual notion of observable speed Vo which is NOT a speed but
a simple decoy.
You are talking about additions of observable (measurable) speeds, the formula is here:
I remind you that physicists who say that real speeds are of no interest
are wrong.
Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity.
On 3/28/2024 7:02 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Rapidity can take on any real value, the rapidity of light
moving at c is infinite.
On 3/27/24 12:07 PM, Volney wrote:
Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity.
Yes. It is the hyperbolic angle of rotation in a space-time plane due to relative velocity v (Minkowski geometry). Just like \theta is typically
the angle of rotation in a space-space plane (Euclidean geometry).
Tom Roberts
Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
_exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.
Where did I say the opposite of that?
R.H.
Den 28.03.2024 16:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
_exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.
Where did I say the opposite of that?
R.H.
Doctor Richard Hachel, I beg you to be a little more serious.
Le 29/03/2024 à 13:13, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 28.03.2024 16:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
_exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.
Where did I say the opposite of that?
R.H.
Doctor Richard Hachel, I beg you to be a little more serious.
Your problem, Paul B. Andersen, is that you don't understand what I'm saying.
No, that is not his problem but yours. Nobody needs to understand you.
You want to be understood. But that not going to happen unless uou
find out how you can make yourself understood.
Le 29/03/2024 à 13:26, Mikko a écrit :
No, that is not his problem but yours. Nobody needs to understand you.
You want to be understood. But that not going to happen unless uou
find out how you can make yourself understood.
“Whoever wants to teach new things must do so with great caution.”
Nietszche dit la même chose : "On n'aime pas trop les nouvelles tables".
I remind you that the problem comes neither from me nor from the reader.
There are no morons in my house or in theirs.
Additionally, I only use equations that are easily understandable for
average 16 or 17 year old students.
Sines, cosines, square roots and nothing more.
This is sufficient to propose a space-time geometry, based on Poincaré's equations, but simpler and truer than that of Minkowski, and which has
no paradox or contradiction.
The question is “but what happens then?”
The answer is infinitely simple and understandable for a seven-year-old child: "We don't want Doctor Hachel to rule over us, he overshadows us."
It's stupid.
BUT it is nevertheless true.
R.H.
The answer is infinitely simple and understandable for a seven-year-old child: "We don't want Doctor Hachel to rule over us, he overshadows us."
Le 29/03/2024 à 13:13, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 28.03.2024 16:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 28/03/2024 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
No accelerator would work if charged particles didn't behave
_exactly_ as predicted by SR and Maxwell.
Where did I say the opposite of that?
Doctor Richard Hachel, I beg you to be a little more serious.
Oh, I'm always very serious.
The big problem is that "the others", in general, are not.
Sometimes out of stupidity, more often out of interest.
I'm not just talking about relativistic science, I'm also talking about
all human behavior in general.
As soon as a small interest is at stake, human beings are incapable of remaining fair and consistent.
It is a law of nature like the law of gravitation.
Your problem, Paul B. Andersen, is that you don't understand what I'm
saying. We must then ask ourselves the question: “But what is happening?”.
Richard speaks and Paul does not understand. For what?
Two solutions are immediately considered by those who read,
according to their scientific ideological orientation.
1. Paul doesn't understand Richard, because Doctor Hachel is a moron.
2. Paul doesn't understand Richard, because Paul is a moron.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
Le 27/03/2024 à 23:03, Python a écrit :
Le 27/03/2024 à 18:07, Volney a écrit :
On 3/27/2024 8:25 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:It appears "Dr." Hachel stumbled across the physics concept of
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.03.2024 09:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/03/2024 à 21:05, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
Don't you think the physicists at CERN had noticed the difference? :-D >>>>
But maybe you were joking.
In that case you had me!
"rapidity". Rapidity is related to speed but isn't a speed. It is
related to speed by r = arctanh(v/c) where v is the velocity. The
rapidity of light is infinity. AFAIK, rapidity is used sometimes to
simplify the math. For example, rapidities of two objects in one
dimensional motion can be just added but velocities need the Einstein
velocity addition formula.
It is not even that, it is worse, far worse.
Je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ton intervention.
J'attends toujours tes excuses pour ton comportement stupide sur le description du voyageur de Langevin en vitesses apparentes, et pourquoi
la formule Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) ne fonctionne que pour l'aller et pas
pour le retour.
R.H.
On 3/28/2024 7:06 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ton intervention.
J'attends toujours tes excuses pour ton comportement stupide sur le description du voyageur de Langevin en vitesses apparentes, et pourquoi
la formule Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) ne fonctionne que pour l'aller et pas pour le retour.
R.H.
Why are you asking us 'Have you ever wondered why you can't taste your tongue?'
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 11:37:08 |
Calls: | 6,982 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,411 |
Messages: | 5,451,786 |