info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
YES !!!
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hachel
Sep 21, 2022, 7:16:01 PM9/21/22
to
I would now like to talk about the problem of integrating proper times
into accelerated repositories.
It has been pointed out to me, for several weeks, that I am very wrong to
criticize this integration, and that if it were not valid, it would be
known.
It is not valid.
Certainly, mathematically we can do it, but this integration does not
correspond to anything "physically".
As we can say verbally that three plus two equals seven, but it is only
words, and mathematically it does not correspond to anything.
Now, it is not enough to shout: "the integration of relativists has no
interest and leads to a false primitive". You have to prove it.
There is a blunder, I have said it a hundred times.
Where is this blunder?
It is in the fact that the DTo curve and that of the To will each join its
own asymptote, and that the higher the values of Vr (or Tr) will be,
the closer the two curves will approach their asymptotes.
The first curve is ΔTo=ΔTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²), and we can clearly see that
the more we progress, the more ΔTo will tend towards ΔTr.Vr/c
The second curve is To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr²/c²) and we can clearly see
that this will tend towards To=Tr.(1/2)Vr/c
In short, the ratio of the two curves will tend towards 2.
That is to say that the constant speed in the Galilean frame will be the
same as the average speed in the accelerated frame.
We can therefore write ΔTo=ΔTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) and consider integration
as more and more “practicable”.
But there is a big problem. This is only valid for very large values
of Vr.
And beyond that, integration leads to phenomenal errors, and the shorter
the rocket's travel period, the greater the difference will seem.
Take the case of Tau Ceti.
To=12.914 years
Tr (predicted by relativists)=3.139 years
Tr (actual Hachel calculation)=4.776 years
The difference is clear.
But let's take Alpha Centauri instead of Tau Ceti. x=4.5 ly
To=5.367 years
Tr(predicted by relativists)=2.312 years
Tr (actual Hachel calculation)=3.773 years
The difference is even clearer.
In short, the problem to consider is that we cannot integrate
the early years correctly. Because in the first years, To and dTo do not
tend at all towards the ratio of 2 that they will have very gradually, and
which will make it possible to confuse the two equations of which I spoke
above.
It is therefore necessary to reject all the equations proposed for the
proper times and to pose:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
Tr=sqrt(2x/a)
ΔTr=Tr2-Tr1
ΔTo=[Tr2.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr2²/c²)]-[Tr1.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr1²/c²)]
Thank you for listening.
R.H.
into accelerated repositories.
It has been pointed out to me, for several weeks, that I am very wrong to
criticize this integration, and that if it were not valid, it would be
known.
It is not valid.
Certainly, mathematically we can do it, but this integration does not
correspond to anything "physically".
As we can say verbally that three plus two equals seven, but it is only
words, and mathematically it does not correspond to anything.
Now, it is not enough to shout: "the integration of relativists has no
interest and leads to a false primitive". You have to prove it.
There is a blunder, I have said it a hundred times.
Where is this blunder?
It is in the fact that the DTo curve and that of the To will each join its
own asymptote, and that the higher the values of Vr (or Tr) will be,
the closer the two curves will approach their asymptotes.
The first curve is ΔTo=ΔTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²), and we can clearly see that
the more we progress, the more ΔTo will tend towards ΔTr.Vr/c
The second curve is To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr²/c²) and we can clearly see
that this will tend towards To=Tr.(1/2)Vr/c
In short, the ratio of the two curves will tend towards 2.
That is to say that the constant speed in the Galilean frame will be the
same as the average speed in the accelerated frame.
We can therefore write ΔTo=ΔTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) and consider integration
as more and more “practicable”.
But there is a big problem. This is only valid for very large values
of Vr.
And beyond that, integration leads to phenomenal errors, and the shorter
the rocket's travel period, the greater the difference will seem.
Take the case of Tau Ceti.
To=12.914 years
Tr (predicted by relativists)=3.139 years
Tr (actual Hachel calculation)=4.776 years
The difference is clear.
But let's take Alpha Centauri instead of Tau Ceti. x=4.5 ly
To=5.367 years
Tr(predicted by relativists)=2.312 years
Tr (actual Hachel calculation)=3.773 years
The difference is even clearer.
In short, the problem to consider is that we cannot integrate
the early years correctly. Because in the first years, To and dTo do not
tend at all towards the ratio of 2 that they will have very gradually, and
which will make it possible to confuse the two equations of which I spoke
above.
It is therefore necessary to reject all the equations proposed for the
proper times and to pose:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
Tr=sqrt(2x/a)
ΔTr=Tr2-Tr1
ΔTo=[Tr2.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr2²/c²)]-[Tr1.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr1²/c²)]
Thank you for listening.
R.H.
Gebruik
Sep 29, 2022, 2:31:21 PM9/29/22
to
ouerk !
Richard Hachel
Sep 29, 2022, 3:01:52 PM9/29/22
to
Le 29/09/2022 à 20:31, Gebruik a écrit :
> ouerk !
Tr=To.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr²/c²)
Yes!
R.H.
> ouerk !
Tr=To.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vr²/c²)
Yes!
R.H.
0 new messages