Relativistic definition

[Richard Hachel]

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?***@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.

[JanPB]

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
Where does the physicists' error come from?

What error?

Post by Richard Hachel
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.
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?

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

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

Post by Richard Hachel
They therefore consider the Tr/To ratio larger than it is.

Whatever. It makes no sense to proceed after all the errors you've made
so far.

--
Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
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".

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by JanPB
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.

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

It is !!!

Post by JanPB
Jan

R.H.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
"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

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
"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.

[Elick Tzagadaev]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by Richard Hachel
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)

not true, here's the hale barking the dog, enough reason to hang all these
capitalist usury traitors "representing" america. A polaker khazar goy
wanker dictates america, my butt I cant believe it.

𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗠𝗶𝗸𝗲_𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝘀_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗣𝗠_𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗶_𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂_𝘁𝗼_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀
𝗮𝘀_©_𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆_©
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/C1htUsZWkWO7

here more truth for you to undrestand

𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_©_𝗗𝗼_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗺𝗮𝗻'𝘀_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳_𝗭𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺? https://
old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/uJRv8nLbIuxT

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/qafwTlVQFAkP

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹'𝘀_𝗙𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵 (amrica has a love afair wint izrael lol)
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/HVbZohUiqljc

and here the real truth, I love communism so very much

𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺_7,200_𝘁𝗼_5,642_𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗠𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁_𝗘𝗹𝗯𝗿𝘂𝘀_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗪𝗪2_𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆_𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗿
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/lkozeme0q12W

you people dont undrestand communism, thats whats wrong with you.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
Where does the physicists' error come from?

What error?

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

[Mikko]

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.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel
"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.
"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.