• Relativistic definition

    From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 23 15:44:59 2024
    Here is a sentence from Dr. Hachel with which physicists do not agree at
    all.
    It's a shame.
    When an individual disagrees with another individual on a scientific
    theory or fact, it would be normal to ask the other party to sit down and explain why they are behaving in an outlandish-looking manner. , and why
    it "thinks differently".
    This would be a proof of logic and human coherence.

    "If two mobiles, one in simple Galilean movement,
    the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
    cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
    then their proper times will be equal."

    Where does the physicists' error come from?
    This comes from the confusion between two lines when they talk about accelerated frames of reference.
    Let's take the drawing on the left. It represents the relationship between proper time, improper time, and distance traveled.
    This is very simple.
    We have Tr(tau) on the ordinate, x/c on the abscissa, and To represented
    by the red line.

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?i6e6RaE0RxCNtGlAaSfIYZlkB2s@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    The problem for physicists is that, on the other hand, they do not
    understand the drawing on the right, we always have Tr, x/c, and To.

    But physicists confuse the length of the blue line (which they take to be
    To) with the red line.

    They therefore consider the Tr/To ratio larger than it is. And if the
    value of To is correct for them, the value Tr is systematically lower, and false.

    Please have a couple of cups of coffee and think a little about what I'm saying.

    This will avoid comments from morons who don't know what they're talking
    about and say nonsense.

    R.H.

    --
    Direct access Nemo here ---> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=i6e6RaE0RxCNtGlAaSfIYZlkB2s@jntp>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 23 22:35:35 2024
    Le 23/07/2024 à 23:57, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
    On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:44:59 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:


    Here is a sentence from Dr. Hachel with which physicists do not agree at
    all.
    It's a shame.
    When an individual disagrees with another individual on a scientific
    theory or fact, it would be normal to ask the other party to sit down
    and
    explain why they are behaving in an outlandish-looking manner. , and why
    it "thinks differently".
    This would be a proof of logic and human coherence.

    "If two mobiles, one in simple Galilean movement,
    the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
    cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
    then their proper times will be equal."

    This is false in general.

    I beg you to show a little politeness.
    I know very well that this is generally false.
    But that's what I say, and I don't care what other people say in general.
    On the other hand, I repeat one last time: "Be careful, it does not work
    if the accelerated mobile already has an initial speed".

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?i6e6RaE0RxCNtGlAaSfIYZlkB2s@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    The problem for physicists is that, on the other hand, they do not
    understand the drawing on the right, we always have Tr, x/c, and To.

    This is basic calculus, the length of a curve. Why is this so confusing
    to you?

    "To" is NOT the length of a curve. It's a terrible error to belive that.

    You are confusing it with the red segment, which I represented in the
    drawing, a segment whose module always progresses with proper time, but
    whose axis gradually turns, a bit like stretching an elastic band while
    finding it in the space?
    I BEG you to understand this, because it is very important. It is not the
    path of the end of the elastic in space that matters, but the length of
    the elastic.
    I beg you to understand this, or at least to make the intellectual effort
    to do so.



    The length of the blue line is the length of the blue line.

    Absolutly.

    But is NOT To !!!

    To is rotating during the proper time and travel grow.

    Please, admet this fondamental new notion.

    Sorry but
    this
    is simply what it is. It's not equal to any of the straight chord lines lengths.

    It is !!!

    Jan

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 24 05:56:06 2024
    W dniu 23.07.2024 o 23:57, JanPB pisze:
    On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:44:59 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:


    Here is a sentence from Dr. Hachel with which physicists do not agree at
    all.
    It's a shame.
    When an individual disagrees with another individual on a scientific
    theory or fact, it would be normal to ask the other party to sit down
    and
    explain why they are behaving in an outlandish-looking manner. , and why
    it "thinks differently".
    This would be a proof of logic and human coherence.

    "If two mobiles, one in simple Galilean movement,
    the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
     cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
    then their proper times will be equal."

    This is false in general.

    Where does the physicists' error come from?

    What error?

    That they followed and worshipped some inconsistent
    mumble of an insane crazie, of course.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Jul 24 12:03:55 2024
    On 2024-07-23 15:44:59 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Here is a sentence from Dr. Hachel with which physicists do not agree at all. It's a shame.
    When an individual disagrees with another individual on a scientific
    theory or fact, it would be normal to ask the other party to sit down
    and explain why they are behaving in an outlandish-looking manner. ,
    and why it "thinks differently".
    This would be a proof of logic and human coherence.

    "If two mobiles, one in simple Galilean movement,
    the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
    cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
    then their proper times will be equal."

    That sentence contains an undefined term "Galilean movement".
    Therefore no agreement is possible.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 24 12:29:35 2024
    Den 24.07.2024 00:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 23/07/2024 à 23:57, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
    On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:44:59 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:


    "If two mobiles, one in simple Galilean movement,
    the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
     cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
    then their proper times will be equal."

    This is false in general.

    I beg you to show a little politeness.
    I know very well that this is generally false.

    .. but still claim it is true! :-D


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 24 11:44:03 2024
    Le 24/07/2024 à 12:29, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 24.07.2024 00:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 23/07/2024 à 23:57, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
    On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:44:59 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:


    "If two mobiles, one in simple Galilean movement,
    the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
     cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
    then their proper times will be equal."

    This is false in general.

    I beg you to show a little politeness.
    I know very well that this is generally false.

    .. but still claim it is true! :-D

    Il y a au moins cinq erreurs majeures fichées dans la théorie de la relativité restreinte
    - La croyance en l'enfantement de la Sainte Vierge Marie en bloc
    opératoire (Bloc de Minkowski)
    - La méconnaissance totale des effets de réciprocités relativistes sur
    les distances: Ainsi, je constate qu'à 0.8c la fusée de Stella semble
    trois fois plus longue, si elle se dirige vers moi, mais elle, elle
    observe que mon télescope de trois mètres de long en fait neuf. Cela
    parait futile de le dire, mais pourtant, c'est l'une des plus grandes incompréhensions de la physique moderne qui pense toujours en terme de "contraction des distances et des longueurs" et non en terme plus juste "d'élasticité".
    - La confusion entre temps impropre des objets accélérés (temps
    terrestre, temps du laboratoire), ligne rouge To, et courbe d'univers du
    mobile (ligne bleue du dessin du docteur Hachel)
    - Les tentatives plus stupides les unes que les autres d'expliquer les transformations des référentiels relativistes tournants, faisant passer
    les physiciens pour des êtres dotés de peu d'intelligence humaine.
    Les transformations correctes, je les ai données.
    - La croyance au "plan du temps présent isochrone" dans l'univers de tout référentiel galiléen, là où les licornes sont bleues, et où l'on
    peut faire de la physique relativiste à vau l'eau.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 24 11:28:12 2024
    Le 24/07/2024 à 11:03, Mikko a écrit :
    then their proper times will be equal."

    That sentence contains an undefined term "Galilean movement".
    Therefore no agreement is possible.

    Mikko

    Vous avez raison.

    Il est plus précis de dire :

    "If two mobiles, one in simple uniform Galilean movement,
    the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
    cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
    then their proper times will be equal."

    However, in the current state of things, it is forbidden to write this on
    your exam sheet, to avoid getting zero.
    Physicists don't mess with trolls, cranks, bandits and thugs. :))

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Jul 26 10:56:19 2024
    On 2024-07-24 11:28:12 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 24/07/2024 à 11:03, Mikko a écrit :

    On 2024-07-23 15:44:59 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    "If two mobiles, one in simple Galilean movement,
    the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
    cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
    then their proper times will be equal."


    That sentence contains an undefined term "Galilean movement".
    Therefore no agreement is possible.

    Mikko

    Vous avez raison.

    Il est plus précis de dire :
    "If two mobiles, one in simple uniform Galilean movement,
    the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
    cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
    then their proper times will be equal."

    Not much better than the first attempt. The term "Galilean movenent"
    is still undefined.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)