Richard Hachel wrote:
For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.
I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same thing.
Many relativistic equations are correct, but not all of them, and those that are not, are not significantly correct.
What is very strange is that despite the ease with which I refute certain points, those who read me often get stuck in stupid refutations, like for example Python, which is a very pathognomonic case.
Faced with the problem I pose, he, like everyone else, loses his temper, insults, and says nonsense.
One of the greatest theoretical proofs that I cannot be wrong, despite everything that people will tell you (because the opposition is very
strong to the new concepts, even if they are superb and demonstrable), is the way in which I give a number of equations where none are given or clearly abstract equations.
A textbook case is the Langevin traveler in apparent mode (what we would see in ultra-powerful telescopes) which I have been talking about for 40 years in a dismaying intellectual desert.
Let's take the classic case:
Let's take a look at Stella's return. What could be simpler to understand than Stella's own time, in the example considered (Vo=0.8c, d=12al), will be Tr=9 years for this return.
No one has ever been able to contradict, and no one will ever contradict (except the Newtonians, but with them, we won't row very far).
But what could be simpler to understand than Stella, in her frame of reference, sees the earth (Vo=0.8c) returning towards her at Vapp=4c.
I remind you, as Jean-Pierre Python finds it hard to believe, that Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) and that those who have been contradicting me for
40 years had better go back to school.
The evidence is then dazzling for anyone who wants to abandon Newtonian
and even Einsteinian a priori. The covered distance
by land for Stella cannot be the same as the distance traveled by Stella for Terrence (12 al).
The distance is obviously x=Vapp.Tr
x=4c*9years
So D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
Or so, D'=D.[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)+cosµ.Vr/c]
It is so obvious that I will never understand how one can oppose rapid and inconsiderate refutations to everything I have been saying for 40 years, and in particular on rotating frames of reference or uniformly accelerated frames of reference, theoretical and logical proofs in support, supporting experimental evidence too.
At this level, we are no longer in science, but in sociology, even theology:
“We don’t want this man to rule over us.”
It's downright stupid.
R.H.
You will be condemned to forever wasting your time on this (like in the article you posted) as long as you refuse to learn physics.
--
Jan
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 307 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 71:46:23 |
Calls: | 6,915 |
Files: | 12,382 |
Messages: | 5,432,124 |