tau egality in relalivity

[Richard Hachel]

What Python doesn't understand.
Python firmly believes that in any case, two observers following different
spatio-temporal "paths" cannot have the same proper time.
I explained to him that yes, by affirming that if two observers traveled
equal distances, with equal times their own times would be equal (under
the condition that the departure of the accelerated traveler is at rest).
Python categorically refuses to drink this kind of milk, because he
"didn't learn SR like that."

However, it is the good doctor Hachel who is right.

Look closely at where Python and his friends the traditional realtivist
physicists are wrong.

Python objectifies the two event points A and B very well, and considers
that AB is Tr, i.e. tau, i.e. proper time.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?D5sf4f-***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Then he will consider the blue curve, which he will think is the other
observer's own time.

Here we find our error, the own time of the other observer, it is the
continuous evolution of the red lines which at the end of their course,
joins the line Tr of the other observer, making the two proper times equal
and reciprocal.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel
What Python doesn't understand.
Python firmly believes that in any case, two observers following
different spatio-temporal "paths" cannot have the same proper time.
I explained to him that yes, by affirming that if two observers traveled
equal distances, with equal times their own times would be equal (under
the condition that the departure of the accelerated traveler is at
rest). Python categorically refuses to drink this kind of milk, because
he "didn't learn SR like that."

No this is not why. I refuses your claim because I can prove it
largely absurd in its formulation and WRONG :

What you called above "equal distances" is equality of spacial
part of two trajectories. This is a frame dependent property.

But the conclusion is about elapsed proper times, which does not
depend on a choice of frame (it is "absolute"). This is a HUGE
logical problem. A frame dependent property cannot imply a frame
independent (except of course, if the latter is always true, which
is the case in Galilean Relativity, but the your claim is just
pointless).

Then you add the condition that elapsed [improper] times are equal,
which is always as the time between any pair or events is unique,
it cannot have two values as seen in a given frame of reference.
So this condition is void.

Your claim is dead in the water at first read by any decent
person. You are not, by the way : you are a mentally ill egomaniac
fool.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 20/07/2024 à 00:08, Python a écrit :

If two travelers leave at the same time, and arrive at the same time, it
goes without saying that the improper times will be equal. This is the
very definition of logical thinking.
On this you agree.
You go even further, and you say: "And whatever the frame of reference
that we use, for an external observer, is Galilean whatever the speed, or
accelerated whatever the acceleration, or rotating whatever the angular
speed , improper tenses will be equal.
Which I also agree with you.
It is on the two proper beats that we no longer agree.
I say:
If one is in uniform Galilean motion, whatever its speed; and the other in
uniformly accelerated movement (START AT REST) ​​whatever its
acceleration, the two proper times will also be equal to each other.
You refute violently because you have read Einstein and Minkowski.
However, I am the one who is right.
You simply use Minkowski's metric and I use Hachel's.
One of us is therefore wrong about the proper times of accelerated
objects. Bigger for Hachel, smaller for you and Paul.
Experimentation will necessarily prove me right due to my theoretical
consistency (yours is incoherent in its latest equations).

R.H.

[Python]

As usual you've snipped my argument and do not even try to
address it (because you know that you can, I'd guess)

Post by Richard Hachel
If two travelers leave at the same time, and arrive at the same time, it
goes without saying that the improper times will be equal. This is the
very definition of logical thinking.

Using as a condition something that is always true is definitely NOT
a logical way of thinking.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip repetition of the same babbling]
You refute violently because you have read Einstein and Minkowski.

I'm not using anything from SR, Einstein or Minkowski in my
argument. What I am showing is that your claim can only be
true on pointless situation i.e. both trajectories are
exactly the same or Galilean Relativity. In all other
cases it is proven WRONG.

Post by Richard Hachel
However, I am the one who is right.
You simply use Minkowski's metric and I use Hachel's.
One of us is therefore wrong about the proper times of accelerated
objects. Bigger for Hachel, smaller for you and Paul.
Experimentation will necessarily prove me right due to my theoretical
consistency (yours is incoherent in its latest equations).

What you called above "equal distances" is equality of spacial
part of two trajectories. This is a frame dependent property.

But the conclusion is about elapsed proper times, which does not
depend on a choice of frame (it is "absolute"). This is a HUGE
logical problem. A frame dependent property cannot imply a frame
independent one (except of course, if the latter is always true, which
is the case in Galilean Relativity, but then your claim is just
pointless).

Then you add the condition that elapsed [improper] times are equal,
which is always as the time between any pair or events is unique,
it cannot have two values as seen in a given frame of reference.
So this condition is void.

Your claim is dead in the water at first read by any decent
person. You are not, by the way : you are a mentally ill egomaniac
fool.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python
As usual you've snipped my argument and do not even try to
address it (because you know that you can, I'd guess)

Post by Richard Hachel
If two travelers leave at the same time, and arrive at the same time,
it goes without saying that the improper times will be equal. This is
the very definition of logical thinking.

Using as a condition something that is always true is definitely NOT
a logical way of thinking.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip repetition of the same babbling]
You refute violently because you have read Einstein and Minkowski.

I'm not using anything from SR, Einstein or Minkowski in my
argument.

Indeed, instead you're using insults, lies,
slanders.
BTW, read what Poincare wrote about non
euclidean geometries in "science and
hypothesis", poor stinker?

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
As usual you've snipped my argument and do not even try to
address it (because you know that you can, I'd guess)

Post by Richard Hachel
If two travelers leave at the same time, and arrive at the same time,
it goes without saying that the improper times will be equal. This is
the very definition of logical thinking.

Using as a condition something that is always true is definitely NOT
a logical way of thinking.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip repetition of the same babbling]
You refute violently because you have read Einstein and Minkowski.

I'm not using anything from SR, Einstein or Minkowski in my
argument.

BTW, read what Poincare wrote about non
euclidean geometries in "science  and
hypothesis"

I did. We've already talked about that. Your point is wrong.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker

Nice signature Wozniak.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
As usual you've snipped my argument and do not even try to
address it (because you know that you can, I'd guess)

Post by Richard Hachel
If two travelers leave at the same time, and arrive at the same
time, it goes without saying that the improper times will be equal.
This is the very definition of logical thinking.

Using as a condition something that is always true is definitely NOT
a logical way of thinking.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip repetition of the same babbling]
You refute violently because you have read Einstein and Minkowski.

I'm not using anything from SR, Einstein or Minkowski in my
argument.

BTW, read what Poincare wrote about non
euclidean geometries in "science  and
hypothesis"

I did. We've already talked about that. Your point is wrong.

Well, that's a shitty, impudent lie, but
nothing worse than your usual level, poor
stinker.

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
As usual you've snipped my argument and do not even try to
address it (because you know that you can, I'd guess)

Post by Richard Hachel
If two travelers leave at the same time, and arrive at the same
time, it goes without saying that the improper times will be equal.
This is the very definition of logical thinking.

Using as a condition something that is always true is definitely NOT
a logical way of thinking.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip repetition of the same babbling]
You refute violently because you have read Einstein and Minkowski.

I'm not using anything from SR, Einstein or Minkowski in my
argument.

BTW, read what Poincare wrote about non
euclidean geometries in "science  and
hypothesis"

I did. We've already talked about that. Your point is wrong.

Well, that's [snip profanities] lie, but
nothing [snip whining]

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/09w_O2XOEik/m/IloTCV6JEgAJ

So no, it is not a lie.

Are you loosing your memory?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python
As usual you've snipped my argument and do not even try to
address it (because you know that you can, I'd guess)

Post by Richard Hachel
If two travelers leave at the same time, and arrive at the same
time, it goes without saying that the improper times will be
equal. This is the very definition of logical thinking.

Using as a condition something that is always true is definitely NOT
a logical way of thinking.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip repetition of the same babbling]
You refute violently because you have read Einstein and Minkowski.

I'm not using anything from SR, Einstein or Minkowski in my
argument.

BTW, read what Poincare wrote about non
euclidean geometries in "science  and
hypothesis"

I did. We've already talked about that. Your point is wrong.

Well, that's [snip profanities] lie, but
nothing [snip whining]

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/09w_O2XOEik/m/IloTCV6JEgAJ
So no, it is not a lie.

Of course it is, and a very stinky one.
And completely idiotic, as well.
The alternatives considered by P were:

"we could give up Euclidean geometry,
or modify the laws of optics, and suppose that
light is not rigorously propagated in a straight line."

Trying to pretend that the choice of your idiot
guru was NOT "give up EG" - is, well, even worse
than your usual level.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
So no, it is not a lie.

Of course it is.

Marnujesz czas na odpowiadanie mu.

Stinker-python jest całkowicie szalony.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
What you called above "equal distances" is equality of spacial
part of two trajectories. This is a frame dependent property.

Obviously.

Et tu veux prouver quoi?

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
What you called above "equal distances" is equality of spacial
part of two trajectories. This is a frame dependent property.

Obviously.

Note obvious at all as you use (my guess is voluntarily) the
wording "equal distances" which could denote something quite
different. Cranks of your kind LOVES ambiguity. I won't allow
such an ambiguity to stay.

Post by Richard Hachel
Et tu veux prouver quoi?

The conclusion of the part you've snipped:

But the conclusion is about elapsed proper times, which does not
depend on a choice of frame (it is "absolute"). This is a HUGE
logical problem. A frame dependent property cannot imply a frame
independent one (except of course, if the latter is always true, which
is the case in Galilean Relativity, but then your claim is just
pointless).

Then you add the condition that elapsed [improper] times are equal,
which is always as the time between any pair or events is unique,
it cannot have two values as seen in a given frame of reference.
So this condition is void.

Your claim is dead in the water at first read by any decent
person. You are not, by the way : you are a mentally ill egomaniac
fool.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
What you called above "equal distances" is equality of spacial
part of two trajectories. This is a frame dependent property.

Obviously.

Note obvious at all as you use (my guess is voluntarily) the

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
What you called above "equal distances" is equality of spacial
part of two trajectories. This is a frame dependent property.

Obviously.

Note obvious at all as you use (my guess is voluntarily) the

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincaré would kick your silly ass, and Hachel's (Lengrand's) one
too if he was around.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
What you called above "equal distances" is equality of spacial
part of two trajectories. This is a frame dependent property.

Obviously.

Note obvious at all as you use (my guess is voluntarily) the

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincaré would kick your silly ass,

That's possible, but he still had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
Cranks of your kind LOVES ambiguity.

Sniffff...

What you just said is very mean, snifff...

All my life, I have hated ambiguities and abstract terms, especially if
they are used to deceive men, sniffff...

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
Cranks of your kind LOVES ambiguity.

Sniffff...
What you just said is very mean, snifff...
All my life, I have hated ambiguities and abstract terms, especially if
they are used to deceive men, sniffff...

This is actually quite interesting how you swiped from an expression
to another one gradually: you started with "trajectories" (which
mentions BOTH time and space coordinates), it was a overstatement
then (it made to nosense) then you switched to "spatial part" which
is acceptable (even if very poorly worded) then to "distance" which
the worse you can do as a "distance" is usually a scalar non-negative
value, definitely not what you would want to meat.

So, yes, I think you are pushing blue smoke in order to deceive, maybe
not mankind, but yourself.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
Cranks of your kind LOVES ambiguity.

Sniffff...
What you just said is very mean, snifff...
All my life, I have hated ambiguities and abstract terms, especially
if they are used to deceive men, sniffff...

This is actually quite interesting how you swiped from an expression

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).