[SR] Was Richard Hachel's equation correct?

[Richard Hachel]

This equation, which I had posed for its beauty and its simplicity, a long
time ago already, then which I extended to uniformly accelerated
movements, provided that the departure of the protagonists takes place at
rest, was it correct?
I think so even more today.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp/Data.Media:1>

I think so especially since I understood why there was a huge bias in
relativity thinking in two of the most famous problems, one in constant
speed (Langevin's traveler), the other in uniformly accelerated speed (the
traveler of Tau Ceti).
As for the second problem (for the first it is ignorance of the spatial
zoom effect), it is in the a priori belief that one can consider that an
accelerated speed is only the putting small constant reference frames end
to end.
I believed it too, and I would have laughed if someone had told me
otherwise.
Yet the problem is there. It's not the same thing.
The equation to use is therefore not (but there, no one will want to
believe me) To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) as in thez uniform movements BUT
To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4 )Vr²/c²)

Thank you for your attention.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp>

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes : il y a des situations de violence."

Abbé Pierre.

[rotchm]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:02:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
<Diversions snipped>

Before you start a new thread, finish the old ones; You have unfinished threads:

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:41:33 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 17/05/2022 à 14:56, rotchm a écrit :
> > Given a reference frame which has been coordinated, two events are said to be
> > "simultaneous" when the clocks
> > located at the events in question indicate the same value.
> This is one of the biggest bullshit I've ever heard from a guy who
> understood the theory of relativity.

Its a definition. Don't you know what a definition is? Whats its purpose, its use?
No answer?

> Relativity says exactly the opposite, and if it does not say so, it is
> because it is badly explained.

I've now told/explained it to you. Now you should know.

> If I synchronize two similar watches and I separate them both in the same
> way and on the same distance, but opposite, they will NEVER simultaneously
> mark the same time between them.

You are confused. We were not talking about synching watches. We were talking about
the *simultaneity* of two *events*. See your first sentence of your OP.

No rebuttal?

"synchronize two similar watches and I separate them"
has nothing to do with your OP; it has nothing to do with simultaneity.
Try to remain on topic.

No rebuttal?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 22:02:57 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:02:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> <Diversions snipped>
>
> Before you start a new thread, finish the old ones; You have unfinished threads:
>
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:41:33 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 17/05/2022 à 14:56, rotchm a écrit :
> > > Given a reference frame which has been coordinated, two events are said to be
> > > "simultaneous" when the clocks
> > > located at the events in question indicate the same value.
> > This is one of the biggest bullshit I've ever heard from a guy who
> > understood the theory of relativity.
>
> Its a definition. Don't you know what a definition is? Whats its purpose, its use?

As you said yourself, poor stinker: together with your
idiot guru you should use another word.

> You are confused. We were not talking about synching watches. We were talking about
> the *simultaneity* of two *events*. See your first sentence of your OP.

Two events are simultaneous when their TAI/UTC/GPS
time coordinates are equal. That's how things are in the real
world. Doesn't matter how loud your bunch of idiots will scream
"NOOOOOOO!!!!!!". It's not going to change anything.

[Python]

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> This equation, which I had posed for its beauty and its simplicity, a
> long time ago already, then which I extended to uniformly accelerated
> movements, provided that the departure of the protagonists takes place
> at rest, was it correct?
> I think so even more today.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
>
> I think so especially since I understood why there was a huge bias in
> relativity thinking in two of the most famous problems, one in constant
> speed (Langevin's traveler), the other in uniformly accelerated speed
> (the traveler of Tau Ceti).
> As for the second problem (for the first it is ignorance of the spatial
> zoom effect), it is in the a priori belief that one can consider that an
> accelerated speed is only the putting small constant reference frames
> end to end.
> I believed it too, and I would have laughed if someone had told me
> otherwise.
> Yet the problem is there. It's not the same thing.
> The equation to use is therefore not (but there, no one will want to
> believe me) To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) as in thez uniform movements BUT
> To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4 )Vr²/c²)

Well, so you changed you mind. It's not any more the same clock
values for both travellers (it was contradictory, as pointed
out by several people btw).

But where is the 1/4 coming from? You didn't show how you
derived this equation.

Anyway, it is necessarily wrong also. Vr in the second one is
a average speed, right? I suggest you to think about what happens
if you consider a very small acceleration, so small that it
cannot have measurable effects.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 22:50:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > This equation, which I had posed for its beauty and its simplicity, a
> > long time ago already, then which I extended to uniformly accelerated
> > movements, provided that the departure of the protagonists takes place
> > at rest, was it correct?
> > I think so even more today.
> >
> > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?uEC3kGiwJtbEbAFKfhm85yLD-zI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >
> >
> > I think so especially since I understood why there was a huge bias in
> > relativity thinking in two of the most famous problems, one in constant
> > speed (Langevin's traveler), the other in uniformly accelerated speed
> > (the traveler of Tau Ceti).
> > As for the second problem (for the first it is ignorance of the spatial
> > zoom effect), it is in the a priori belief that one can consider that an
> > accelerated speed is only the putting small constant reference frames
> > end to end.
> > I believed it too, and I would have laughed if someone had told me
> > otherwise.
> > Yet the problem is there. It's not the same thing.
> > The equation to use is therefore not (but there, no one will want to
> > believe me) To=Tr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) as in thez uniform movements BUT
> > To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4 )Vr²/c²)
> Well, so you changed you mind. It's not any more the same clock

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

[Python]

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> [demented rant]

Could you explain us how can a^2+b^2=c^2 for a rectangular triangle
be true or not depending on the choice of units, Maciej? Thanks.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 19/05/2022 à 22:50, Python a écrit :
> Well, so you changed you mind. It's not any more the same clock
> values for both travellers (it was contradictory, as pointed
> out by several people btw).
>
> But where is the 1/4 coming from? You didn't show how you
> derived this equation.
>
> Anyway, it is necessarily wrong also. Vr in the second one is
> a average speed, right? I suggest you to think about what happens
> if you consider a very small acceleration, so small that it
> cannot have measurable effects.

Oh! A post without insults.

It's good.

So there needs to be a reward.

And answer the question asked.

The question is: but where does this strange 1/4 come from?

R.H.

[Python]

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:

> Le 19/05/2022 à 22:50, Python a écrit :
>> Well, so you changed you mind. It's not any more the same clock
>> values for both travellers (it was contradictory, as pointed
>> out by several people btw).
>>
>> But where is the 1/4 coming from? You didn't show how you
>> derived this equation.
>>
>> Anyway, it is necessarily wrong also. Vr in the second one is
>> a average speed, right? I suggest you to think about what happens
>> if you consider a very small acceleration, so small that it
>> cannot have measurable effects.
>
>
> Oh! A post without insults.

As was numerous posts of mine, and others, you ignored.

> It's good.
>
> So there needs to be a reward.
>
> And answer the question asked.
>
> The question is: but where does this strange 1/4 come from?

It's one out of two questions. The second one is: how cannot
you see, with my hint, that it cannot be right?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > [demented rant]
>
> Could you explain us

Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.

Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
That your bunch of idiots has ruined it, just like many other
reasonable rules?

[rotchm]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:59:16 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying to pretend he knows something.
> Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
> a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?

<Snipped off topic rants>

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

[Richard Hachel]

Don't attack him.

For once he responds correctly to a post without insulting him, he should
not be discouraged.

R.H.

[Python]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>> [demented rant]
>>
>> Could you explain us
>
> Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
> to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.

So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
Humanity ever had" is giving up?

> Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
> Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
> amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
> the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
> a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?

No.

> That your bunch of idiots has ruined it, just like many other
> reasonable rules?

Well, again you missed the point. Study SR, GR, physics, etc.

*think*, don't rant with idiotic claims.

[Stan Fultoni]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:02:56 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > That isn't an answer. I've explained the self-contradiction in your claims.
> > You see, your denial of modern science has nothing to do with acceleration at all.
> > You disagree with proposition (1), which has nothing to do with acceleration. It
> > simply gives the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerating path between two
> > events. But it's even worse, because when you are asked what you would put in
> > place of (1), you simply re-affirm (1)... only to re-deny it moments later...
> >
> > Your beliefs are self-evidently fallacious and self-contradictory. This is
> > obvious to everyone who has looked at what you post. Now you will simply run
> > away, as all crackpots do.
>
> No, of course not, I'm not going to run away.

You didn't run away from the venue, but you ran away from the debunking of your beliefs, as all crackpots do. When your lies are exposed, you just flee and start over again in a new thread.

I ask again: What is the elapsed proper time for a clock moving uniformly (no acceleration) from xi,ti to xj,tj ? Why can't you answer this simple question?

[Richard Hachel]

Le 20/05/2022 à 01:20, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> You didn't run away from the venue, but you ran away from the debunking of your
> beliefs, as all crackpots do. When your lies are exposed, you just flee and start
> over again in a new thread.
>
> I ask again: What is the elapsed proper time for a clock moving uniformly (no
> acceleration) from xi,ti to xj,tj ? Why can't you answer this simple question?

Because the answer is known to everyone.

If an entity is moving at constant speed Vo, its proper time
will be Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Or Tr=To/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

The best-known example is that of Langevin's traveler, where a traveler
goes into the stars for a terrestrial duration of 30 years and at two
hundred and forty thousand kilometers per second.

Vo=0.8c

Vr=1.3333c

Its proper time will be:
Tr=30.sqrt(1-0.8²)=18 years.

However, Tr=30/sqrt(1+1.3333²)=18 years.

There is no difficult problem here.

R.H.

[Stan Fultoni]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:34:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > I ask again: What is the elapsed proper time for a clock moving uniformly (no
> > acceleration) from xi,ti to xj,tj ? Why can't you answer this simple question?
>

> If an entity is moving at constant speed Vo, its proper time will

> be Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).

You contradict yourself (again). Remember, the two propositions are:

(1) The elapsed proper time along a uniform path (no acceleration) between
two given events ei and ej is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)].
(2) The elapsed proper time along a path undergoing constant proper acceleration
between two given events equals the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated
path between those two events.

Those claims are self-contradictory, because, for any three events e1,e2,e3 on a constantly accelerating path, where the accelerating clock reads the proper time values tau1,tau2,tau3, your claim is that

. . tau2 - tau1 = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2]
. . tau3 - tau2 = sqrt[(t3-t2)^2 - (x3-x2)^2]
. . tau3 - tau1 = sqrt[(t3-t1)^2 - (x3-x1)^2]

but these relations are self-contradictory, as shown by the fact that

. . . (tau2-tau1) + (tau3-tau2) = (tau3-tau1)

If you add the right sides of the first two expressions above, it does not equal the right side of the third expression unless the three events e1,e2,e3 are co-linear, meaning the accelerating path is not accelerating. This proves that your claims are self-contradictory.

Whenever this is explained to you, you deny (1), but you just re-affirmed (1), then then you deny it, and then you re-affirm it, and then you deny it... and so on, endlessly.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 01:03:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 23:10:40 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>> [demented rant]
> >>
> >> Could you explain us
> >
> > Nothing can ever be explained to a fanatic idiot refusing
> > to listen to the wiser ones, sorry.
> So no answer about a dimensioned equation to stay true
> even in different unit systems? "One of the best logician
> Humanity ever had" is giving up?
> > Have you ever heard of so -called time dilation, BTW?
> > Suppose a clock in a valley would count a different
> > amount of ISO seconds than a clock on a hill during
> > the same day... wouldn't it mean that there is no longer
> > a constant multiplier between a day and an ISO second?
> No.

Yes, poor idiot, yes. 86400 ISO seconds on Earth, 86400.000044u
on a GPS satellite. Two different numbers. Surprise!

[Maciej Wozniak]

Well, a mistake of mine, of course. It's 86400.000038 on
a GPS satellite. Still different than 86400.

[Python]

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:

wrong.

[Python]

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:

still wrong Wozzie.

[Maciej Wozniak]

When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must be
true. Well, no. There is no constant multiplier
between a day and an ISO second anymore.
Your bunch of idiots has ruined this rule, just like
many other reasonable rules.

[Python]

Still wrong, even if you repeated it one thousand time, Woz...

[Maciej Wozniak]

Impudent denying the reality may only help
your Shit in the short run, Pyt...

[Python]

117 years, still running. You'll rot in the holy soil of Poland for
eons and Relativity will still be there, Woz.

This is why your silly posts enjoy people, you know?

[Maciej Wozniak]

And while "running" - forbidden by it GPS and TAI
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

[J. J. Lodder]

There cannot be any constant multiplier between any fixed clock second
and the observed length of the day.
(as defined by the observed rotation of the Earth)
The observed length of the (siderial) day is highly variable.
(with today's precision)
That is a fact of life that no one can do anything about.

OTOH, for many purposes the length of a 'day' is defined
to be 24*60*60 seconds, exactly.

So take your pick, and define your terms,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Still, THE SAME day takes different amount of ISO
seconds, depending on the position and the speed of
the clock. And that means that your precious laws of
physics written in days, or in day related seconds -
will be different. And that they were different up to
1968 (afair). With the unit of time as it was defined
when your idiot guru lived and mumbled - his
dilation was a logical absurd.

> So take your pick, and define your terms,

:) what do you mean by "define"? Define it....
The terms of the real power and real importance
are not defined and never were. Of course,
it makes correct applying them much more
complicated and difficult... Too complicated
and too difficult for you.

[Volney]

On 5/19/2022 9:16 PM, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:34:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> I ask again: What is the elapsed proper time for a clock moving uniformly (no
>>> acceleration) from xi,ti to xj,tj ? Why can't you answer this simple question?
>>
>> If an entity is moving at constant speed Vo, its proper time will
>> be Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
>
> You contradict yourself (again). Remember, the two propositions are:
>
> (1) The elapsed proper time along a uniform path (no acceleration) between
> two given events ei and ej is sqrt[(ti-tj)^2) - (xi-xj)^2)].
> (2) The elapsed proper time along a path undergoing constant proper acceleration
> between two given events equals the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated
> path between those two events.
>
> Those claims are self-contradictory, because, for any three events e1,e2,e3 on a constantly accelerating path, where the accelerating clock reads the proper time values tau1,tau2,tau3, your claim is that
>
> . . tau2 - tau1 = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2]
> . . tau3 - tau2 = sqrt[(t3-t2)^2 - (x3-x2)^2]
> . . tau3 - tau1 = sqrt[(t3-t1)^2 - (x3-x1)^2]

If one adds the first two equations, you get:

tau3 - tau1 = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2] + sqrt[(t3-t2)^2 - (x3-x2)^2]

But the third equation reads:

tau3 - tau1 = sqrt[(t3-t1)^2 - (x3-x1)^2]
>
> but these relations are self-contradictory, as shown by the fact that
>
> . . . (tau2-tau1) + (tau3-tau2) = (tau3-tau1)
>
> If you add the right sides of the first two expressions above, it does not equal the right side of the third expression unless the three events e1,e2,e3 are co-linear, meaning the accelerating path is not accelerating. This proves that your claims are self-contradictory.

In other words, except for a particular special case where:
sqrt[(t3-t1)^2 - (x3-x1)^2] = sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2] +
sqrt[(t3-t2)^2 - (x3-x2)^2], your (Richard's) claim is false.

And that special case is when there is no acceleration.

[Richard Hachel]

I think that an in-depth reflection on this subject would be worthwhile
and welcome.

Too many things do not fit in the theory of relativity as it is presented.

R.H.

[J. J. Lodder]

You are still not telling us what 'a day' is,
according to you,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

How could I when you've not told what "telling"
is according to you, poor halfbrain?

[J. J. Lodder]

If you cannot even tell us what 'a day' is, according to you,
you cannot expect us to tell you anything about it,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

If you can't even tell me what you expect - I can't do
what you expect, poor halfbrain.