*Post by Sylvia Else*"Time dilation" is a special case of the Lorentz transform, and due to

continued lack of clarity on this point in popular science media, people

tie themselves in knots by trying to use time dilation in situations

that do not match the special case.

Apply the complete Lorentz transform to your problem, and any apparent

contradictions will go away.

Sylvia.

It is notorious today that physicists (no physicist in the world) do not

understand the theory of relativity which is a very simple concept when we

see it (I spent 40 years sometimes thinking about it whole nights).

Many idiots insult Doctor Hachel, because he doesn't think exactly like

them, and thus believe he is doing a good job.

The charming Sylvia says that today there is no more paradox and falsity

in the theory, she is wrong. She doesn't realize that it's just a very

imperfect mathematical work, as if we were approaching the truth and the

solution, but without fully finding it.

Certainly the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are correct, and

certainly, they induce a relativity of times, and on this she is

absolutely right, and we prove it both mathematically (theoretical

internal perfection) and physically (experimental perfection).

But apart from the brilliant transformations of the French mathematician,

the understanding of the problem becomes, for men, completely vague, and

they no longer understand correctly what they are saying or saying is

false.

We then enter into the behavior of the human male: denial.

The greatest of the relativist theorists today is me, and if so many

idiots stopped being monkeys and listened to me a little we wouldn't be in

so much darkness, and with so many cranks who want to impose concepts even

more stupid than those of Minkowski.

The main errors are:

1. Physicists confuse time measurement and the internal chronotropy of

watches. This is also what explains why they were never able to resolve,

even remotely, the Langevin paradox, and that I am the only one who can

really do it and explain it clearly.

Let's take the example of Stella and Terrence, she comes back aged 18, he

is 30 years old. This is certain, we cannot contradict. But this is a

criterion of the MEASUREMENT OF TIME and not of chronotropy. They do not

have the same measure of time, far from it, but always, always, always,

they have had the same reciprocity of chronotropy, that is to say that not

a single second, for any of them , throughout the outward and return

journey the chronotropy of the other continued to be weaker. For each, the

internal mechanism of the other watch ALWAYS turned slower, second after

second. The paradox seems obvious and likely to drive one crazy after 120

years of theoretical physics. We forget one thing: Poincaré's equations

have a numerator and a denominator. The numerator is at the top and

represents the effects of external anisochrony, the numerator is at the

bottom, and represents the effects of internal chronotropy. If we only

take the denominator (Lorentz factor) we enter into absurdity. If we take

both terms, everything is nothing more than logic and fantastic

mathematical beauty. But that's not all to have the full resolution of the

paradox, and physicists forget a second thing.

2. Physicists, very strangely, absolutely do not understand (but

absolutely not) the brilliant sentence of Richard Hachel (that's me):

"There is no absolute frame of reference, and all the laws of physics are

invariant (in particular the observable speed of light) by change of frame

of reference; and the effects of physics are symmetrical and reciprocal by

permutation of observer.

This seems very simple, even obvious, but physicists do not fully

understand the meaning of the second part of the sentence. They do not

understand the reciprocity of the effects of elasticity of lengths and

distances by permutation of observer.

In summary, there are two major misunderstandings if only to explain the

Langevin paradox.

The rest is, I repeat again, only a human religious and philosophical

problem: "We do not want this man to reign over us."

For Sylvia, as she is kind, which is rare on usenet, and as she likes the

gifts and the transformations of Poincaré-Lorentz, which she knows by

heart, I dedicate to her the transformations of Hachel which are valid

this time for rotating relativistic environments. She can learn them by

heart if she wants, and even teach them to anyone she wants (if she is not

afraid of being assassinated like President Kennedy). It's free.

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

R.H.