3 views

Skip to first unread message

Sep 21, 2022, 7:16:01 PM (10 days ago) Sep 21

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.

Sep 29, 2022, 2:31:21 PM (2 days ago) Sep 29

to

ouerk !

Sep 29, 2022, 3:01:52 PM (2 days ago) Sep 29

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.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu