Den 15.07.2024 21:57, skrev Richard Hachel:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ch2jfWaArdOfK3yzPPitxq9HA-A@jntp/Data.Media:1>
It is true according to SR. It inevitably follows from the metric:
(c⋅dτ )² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²
If you think otherwise, you better show where my math is wrong.
I am not interested in your opinion.
Le 16/07/2024 à 14:01, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 15.07.2024 21:57, skrev Richard Hachel:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ch2jfWaArdOfK3yzPPitxq9HA-A@jntp/Data.Media:1>
It is true according to SR. It inevitably follows from the metric:
(c⋅dτ )² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²
If you think otherwise, you better show where my math is wrong.
I am not interested in your opinion.
Ce n'est pas un comportement scientifique.
J'ai expliqué depuis longtemps déjà que cette formule d'apparence
logique et extraordinairement cohérente était fausse.
Le piège en est terrible.
C'est très joli, mais c'est faux.
Et cela conduit à des estimations de temps propres faux par défaut : les temps propres sont plus importants que ne le prédit cette formule faite correctement mais en milieu géométrique inexistant dans la nature réelle des choses.
La beauté et la cohérence des mathématiques (ici votre intégration parfaite) deviennent fausses et inutiles si on les applique à une
physique abstraite de la réalité des choses.
J'encadre la dernière phrase.
R.H.
Le 16/07/2024 à 14:01, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 15.07.2024 21:57, skrev Richard Hachel:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ch2jfWaArdOfK3yzPPitxq9HA-A@jntp/Data.Media:1>
It is true according to SR. It inevitably follows from the metric:
(c⋅dτ )² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²
If you think otherwise, you better show where my math is wrong.
I am not interested in your opinion.
This is not scientific behaviour.
I have explained for a long time now that this
seemingly logical and extraordinarily coherent
formula was false.
Den 16.07.2024 15:38, skrev Richard Hachel:
I have explained for a long time now that this
seemingly logical and extraordinarily coherent
formula was false.
The equation is correct according to SR.
I am not interested in what you think the equation should be
according to your "theory".
Le 16/07/2024 à 21:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 16.07.2024 15:38, skrev Richard Hachel:
I have explained for a long time now that this seemingly logical and
extraordinarily coherent formula was false.
The equation is correct according to SR.
According to minkowkian SR, you are right.
Your equation is correct.
But not in hachelian geometry.
I am not interested in what you think the equation should be
according to your "theory".
Den 16.07.2024 21:11, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 16/07/2024 à 21:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 16.07.2024 15:38, skrev Richard Hachel:
I have explained for a long time now that this seemingly logical and
extraordinarily coherent formula was false.
The equation is correct according to SR.
According to minkowkian SR, you are right.
There is but one Special Theory of Relativity.
Am Dienstag000016, 16.07.2024 um 21:43 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
There is but one Special Theory of Relativity.
No, since actually Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'
is usually called SRT.
But there have been several other attempts to the same problem.
One stems from Herman Minkowski and one from Herny Poincaré.
Also the present mainstream consensus about this subject can be called
'SRT', but is different to what Einstein wrote.
There are also a number of other versions, which were created by people
of minor importance, like e.g. also people participating in this forum.
What exactly 'SRT' is, that is not cast in stone, but is a subject you
could debate.
...
Den 17.07.2024 09:14, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000016, 16.07.2024 um 21:43 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
There is but one Special Theory of Relativity.
No, since actually Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies' is usually called SRT.
Of course. This IS the Special Theory of Relativity.
But there have been several other attempts to the same problem.
One stems from Herman Minkowski and one from Herny Poincaré.
Minkowski introduced spacetime and the geometric approach
with metric and proper time.
It is a reformulation of Einstein's theory, but it is
still The Special Theory of Relativity.
Einstein adopted this view, and the very first equation
in Einstein's "The Foundation of General Relativity"
is the metric for the Special Theory of Relativity.
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
§ 4 equation (1)
Also the present mainstream consensus about this subject can be called
'SRT', but is different to what Einstein wrote.
It is still the same one and only Special Theory of Relativity,
even if the math has evolved since 1905.
But there is nothing you can calculate from the metric,
which you can't calculate from the Lorentz transform in
"On the electrodynamics of moving bodies".
There are also a number of other versions, which were created by
people of minor importance, like e.g. also people participating in
this forum.
What exactly 'SRT' is, that is not cast in stone, but is a subject you
could debate.
...
The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
and there is no debate of what it is.
(Among reasonable knowledgeable people.)
Den 17.07.2024 09:14, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000016, 16.07.2024 um 21:43 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
There is but one Special Theory of Relativity.
No, since actually Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies' is usually called SRT.
Of course. This IS the Special Theory of Relativity.
But there have been several other attempts to the same problem.
One stems from Herman Minkowski and one from Herny Poincaré.
Minkowski introduced spacetime and the geometric approach
with metric and proper time.
It is a reformulation of Einstein's theory, but it is
still The Special Theory of Relativity.
Einstein adopted this view, and the very first equation
in Einstein's "The Foundation of General Relativity"
is the metric for the Special Theory of Relativity.
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
§ 4 equation (1)
Also the present mainstream consensus about this subject can be called
'SRT', but is different to what Einstein wrote.
It is still the same one and only Special Theory of Relativity,
even if the math has evolved since 1905.
But there is nothing you can calculate from the metric,
which you can't calculate from the Lorentz transform in
"On the electrodynamics of moving bodies".
There are also a number of other versions, which were created by
people of minor importance, like e.g. also people participating in
this forum.
What exactly 'SRT' is, that is not cast in stone, but is a subject you
could debate.
...
The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
and there is no debate of what it is.
(Among reasonable knowledgeable people.)
Den 17.07.2024 09:14, skrev Thomas Heger:
The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
and there is no debate of what it is.
Le 17/07/2024 à 14:34, Paul.B.Andersen a écrit :
Both Thomas and Richard are insanely demented. But at least Thomas
is not allowed to practice medicine.
Le 17/07/2024 à 14:29, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 17.07.2024 09:14, skrev Thomas Heger:
The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
With absurdities.
Stella (tau) = 9 years
Vapp=0.4444c
x=7.2 ly
? ? ?
Stella (tau) = 9 years again
Vapp= 4c
x= 7.2 ly
? ? ?
and there is no debate of what it is.
If it were true, there would be no point in trying to convince the world
of it.
it can be somewhat funny (and provides occasion to better understand the theory).
Le 17/07/2024 à 15:17, Python a écrit :
it can be somewhat funny (and provides occasion to better understand the
theory).
I'm here for that, and more than you think.
Le 17/07/2024 à 15:28, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 17/07/2024 à 15:17, Python a écrit :
it can be somewhat funny (and provides occasion to better understand the >>> theory).
I'm here for that, and more than you think.
What is sad is that the only one not making progress, even regressing,
is you. You're not alone though (Heger, Wozniak, etc.)
During the last decades I've seen only ONCE a crank to change his mind
by being confronting to rational thinking.
Also the present mainstream consensus about this subject can be called
'SRT', but is different to what Einstein wrote.
It is still the same one and only Special Theory of Relativity,
even if the math has evolved since 1905.
But there is nothing you can calculate from the metric,
which you can't calculate from the Lorentz transform in
"On the electrodynamics of moving bodies".
There are also a number of other versions, which were created by
people of minor importance, like e.g. also people participating in
this forum.
What exactly 'SRT' is, that is not cast in stone, but is a subject you
could debate.
...
The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
and there is no debate of what it is.
(Among reasonable knowledgeable people.)
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
and there is no debate of what it is.
(Among reasonable knowledgeable people.)
You could regard as 'SRT' also the modern version(-s) of Einstein's
origional theory.
This would be the relations in 'flat' space, where objects fly in
streigth lateral motion and non-accelerated objects.
I would regard this interpretation of 'SRT' as perfectly possible, too.
This is the 'special' case of GR, which covers accelerated FoRs.
Both SR and GR "covers accelerated frames of reference".
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
Both SR and GR "covers accelerated frames of reference".
In special relativity, one can still talk about the proper time
length of a section of an accelerated dude's world line from the
perspective of a non-accelerated guy.
But one can't describe the
x-t coordinate system that the accelerated dude is using, because
for him to be at rest, he's got to assume there's a gravitational
field to explain why he feels like he's accelerating.
A Lorentz
transformation (a "boost") isn't enough to get one to that x-t
coordinate system of the accelerated guy starting from the x-t
coordinate system of some non-accelerated dude.
In special relativity, one can still talk about the proper time
length of a section of an accelerated dude's world line from the
perspective of a non-accelerated guy. But one can't describe the
x-t coordinate system that the accelerated dude is using, because
for him to be at rest, he's got to assume there's a gravitational
field to explain why he feels like he's accelerating. A Lorentz
transformation (a "boost") isn't enough to get one to that x-t
coordinate system of the accelerated guy starting from the x-t
coordinate system of some non-accelerated dude.
Den 18.07.2024 08:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
and there is no debate of what it is.
(Among reasonable knowledgeable people.)
You could regard as 'SRT' also the modern version(-s) of Einstein's
origional theory.
This would be the relations in 'flat' space, where objects fly in
streigth lateral motion and non-accelerated objects.
The one and only Special Theory of Relativity is only
valid in "flat spacetime" where there is no gravitation.
In flat spacetime non accelerated objects will move along
straight lines in an inertial frame of reference.
But accelerated objects can move in along any curve depending
on the accelerating force. Obviously!
Examples of accelerated motion in flat spacetime: https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
I would regard this interpretation of 'SRT' as perfectly possible, too.
There is no interpretation of SR where objects can't accelerate.
Am Donnerstag000018, 18.07.2024 um 19:54 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 18.07.2024 08:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
and there is no debate of what it is.
(Among reasonable knowledgeable people.)
You could regard as 'SRT' also the modern version(-s) of Einstein's
origional theory.
This would be the relations in 'flat' space, where objects fly in
streigth lateral motion and non-accelerated objects.
The one and only Special Theory of Relativity is only
valid in "flat spacetime" where there is no gravitation.
In flat spacetime non accelerated objects will move along
straight lines in an inertial frame of reference.
But accelerated objects can move in along any curve depending
on the accelerating force. Obviously!
Examples of accelerated motion in flat spacetime:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
I would regard this interpretation of 'SRT' as perfectly possible, too.
There is no interpretation of SR where objects can't accelerate.
Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover acceleration.
('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
This went as far as this:
Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a
streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that
'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along a polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in the corners.
Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover
acceleration.
('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
This went as far as this:
Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a
streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that
'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along a
polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in the
corners.
And you pretend to be an engineer... LOL !
Den 18.07.2024 21:02, skrev Stefan Ram:
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
Both SR and GR "covers accelerated frames of reference".
In special relativity, one can still talk about the proper time
length of a section of an accelerated dude's world line from the
perspective of a non-accelerated guy.
The proper time is invariant, and doesn't depend on "perspective".
Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Python:
...
Well, at least I have a diploma and am allowed to use the academic
Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover
acceleration.
('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
This went as far as this:
Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a
streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that
'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along a
polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in the
corners.
And you pretend to be an engineer... LOL !
degree 'Dipl. Ing.'.
But anyhow:
would you really allow constant velocity along 'any polygonal line'??????
To me this is blatant nonsense, because acceleration depends on the
radius of curvature of the path and in a sharp corner with zero radius
the acceleration would be infinite.
On 2024-07-18 20:41:13 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said:
Den 18.07.2024 21:02, skrev Stefan Ram:
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
Both SR and GR "covers accelerated frames of reference".
In special relativity, one can still talk about the proper time
length of a section of an accelerated dude's world line from the
perspective of a non-accelerated guy.
The proper time is invariant, and doesn't depend on "perspective".
However, the effor needed to determine it may depend.
Le 20/07/2024 à 08:15, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Python:
...
Well, at least I have a diploma and am allowed to use the academic
Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover
acceleration.
('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
This went as far as this:
Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a
streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that
'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along
a polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in
the corners.
And you pretend to be an engineer... LOL !
degree 'Dipl. Ing.'.
But anyhow:
would you really allow constant velocity along 'any polygonal line'??????
To me this is blatant nonsense, because acceleration depends on the
radius of curvature of the path and in a sharp corner with zero radius
the acceleration would be infinite.
You are a failure of the German Education System clearly. You shouldn't
in no way got a diploma in engineering.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 07:08:16 |
Calls: | 7,826 |
Calls today: | 9 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,769,253 |
Posted today: | 1 |