On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 2:44:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 20:37, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> > Are you denying that the ratio of (x2-x1) and (t2-t1) is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
> YES!
> ABSOLUTLY!
> I am denying!

<sigh>

> It is false To1 is a carrot, To2 is a turnip.

Irrelevant. We are discussing t1 & t2, not To1 and To2. Stay on topic.
t1 & t2 are both numbers, both real numbers, and physically, they are
both times with same units, agree?

What is then the difference of these two numbers? What's the "formula" for their difference?

On Saturday, 22 October 2022 at 03:44:21 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> Irrelevant. We are discussing t1 & t2, not To1 and To2. Stay on topic.
> t1 & t2 are both numbers, both real numbers, and physically, they are
> both times with same units, agree?
>
> What is then the difference of these two numbers? What's the "formula" for their difference?

Anyone can check in GPS, they're equal
with a precision of an acceptable error.
Common sense was warning your idiot
guru.

rotchm wrote:

>> > If you deny that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2 - t1, what do
>> > you think the difference between those two numbers is? For example,
>> > if t1 = 5 and t2 = 9, I say that the difference between t1 and t2 is
>> > 9-5 = 4. What do you think is the difference between 9 and 5?
>
>> You ask if x=5ly?
>
> No. Can't you read? He asked:
> " What do you think is the difference between 9 and 5? " ?

you suck dicks. You mean the difference between t2 and t1, not "between t1
and t2". Amazing this cretin isn't knowing the diferences and the division
arn't comutative, as addition and multiplication. Idiot.

Le 22/10/2022 à 03:44, rotchm a écrit :
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 2:44:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 21/10/2022 à 20:37, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>
>> > Are you denying that the ratio of (x2-x1) and (t2-t1) is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
>> YES!
>> ABSOLUTLY!
>> I am denying!
>
> <sigh>
>
>> It is false To1 is a carrot, To2 is a turnip.
>
> Irrelevant. We are discussing t1 & t2, not To1 and To2. Stay on topic.
> t1 & t2 are both numbers, both real numbers, and physically, they are
> both times with same units, agree?

In my notation, as I have already said, I differentiate real time,
proper time, i.e. that which is perceived in the original frame of
reference where the event takes place, and I call it Tr.

Things being observed from another frame of reference, and time being
relative, ie chronotropy, this proper time undergoes a relativistic
aberration.
It becomes an "observable" time from another frame of reference and
depends on the observing frame.
So I call him To.

o like Oscar.

Stan fultoni uses the terms t and tau to mean the same thing.

For the speeds, it's the same: Vr, Vo, Vapp.

Real speed (?), observable speed (v), apparent speed (v_app).
>
> What is then the difference of these two numbers? What's the "formula" for their
> difference?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?JbEnflhtu2bavFdsJ1N0SNWJIa8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

Le 22/10/2022 à 02:12, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:22:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > Remember, x and t are coordinates, corresponding to the readings on a grid of
>> > standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in a given
>> frame.
>> > The rocket begins at x=0, t=0, and then it passes through x=x1, t=t1, and then
>> it
>> > passes through x=x2, t=t2, and so on, up to x=12, t=12.915. In terms of these
>> > coordinates, the difference between the spatial coordinates x1 and x2 is x2 -
>> x1,
>> > and the difference between the temporal coordinates t1 and t2 is t2 - t1.
>> >
>> > If you deny that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2 - t1, what do you
>> think
>> > the difference between those two numbers is? For example, if t1 = 5 and t2 =
>> 9, I
>> > say that the difference between t1 and t2 is 9-5 = 4. What do you think is the
>>
>> > difference between 9 and 5?
>>
>> You ask if x=5ly?
>
> No, I ask if t1=5 and t2=9, what is the difference between t1 and t2?

t=4.

R.H.

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 7:57:06 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 22/10/2022 à 03:44, rotchm a écrit :
> > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 2:44:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> >> > Are you denying that the ratio of (x2-x1) and (t2-t1) is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
> >> YES!
> >> ABSOLUTLY!
> >> I am denying!
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> >> It is false To1 is a carrot, To2 is a turnip.
> >
> > Irrelevant. We are discussing t1 & t2, not To1 and To2. Stay on topic.
> > t1 & t2 are both numbers, both real numbers, and physically, they are
> > both times with same units, agree?

> In my notation, as I have already said, I differentiate real time,
> proper time, i.e. that which is perceived in the original frame of
> reference where the event takes place, and I call it Tr.

Irrelevant. Stay on topic. We are talking about two *values*, no matter where they come from.
We have the values t1 & t2. What is the difference between these two values?

> Things being observed from another frame of reference, and time being
> relative, ie chronotropy, this proper time undergoes a relativistic
> aberration.
> It becomes an "observable" time from another frame of reference and
> depends on the observing frame.
> So I call him To.

All gibberish and unnecessary. Just say "the value on the clock", where 'clock' is the one being discussed.
Very simple & w/o any gibberish. Do you understand what it means 'the value on the clock'?
In your scenario, you have two clocks: one on earth and one at TC. The traveler has a watch.
You are interested on the values of these devices when a certain event occurs the mentioned device.

> Stan fultoni uses the terms t and tau to mean the same thing.

Then adopt those notations, they are the conventional notations that one is used to.
Are simpler just say 'the value on the clock'.

> > What is then the difference of these two numbers? What's the "formula" for their
> > difference?
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?JbEnflhtu2bavFdsJ1N0SNWJIa8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

No answer?
And the link doesn't work.

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 4:57:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> > Remember, x and t are coordinates, corresponding to the readings on a grid of
> >> > standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame
> >> > The rocket begins at x=0, t=0, and then it passes through x=x1, t=t1, and then it
> >> > passes through x=x2, t=t2, and so on, up to x=12, t=12.915. In terms of these
> >> > coordinates, the difference between the spatial coordinates x1 and x2 is x2 - x1,
> >> > and the difference between the temporal coordinates t1 and t2 is t2 - t1.
> >> >
> >> > If you deny that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2 - t1, what do you think
> >> > the difference between those two numbers is? For example, if t1 = 5 and t2 = 9, I
> >> > say that the difference between t1 and t2 is 9-5 = 4. What do you think is the
> >> > difference between 9 and 5?
> >>
> >> You ask if x=5ly?
> >
> > No, I ask if t1=5 and t2=9, what is the difference between t1 and t2?
>
> t=4.

No, the symbol t represents a coordinate, not a difference between coordinates. The trajectory we are discussing is described by the relation t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a) with a=1.052. At the time t=5 the rocket is at x=4.139, and at the time t=9 the rocket is at x=8.099. Also, at the time t=4 the rocket is at x=3.161. The value of t when the rocket is at x=3.161 is not relevant, so your answer "t=4" makes no sense.

Again, the question is, how much has t changed while the rocket is moving from x = x1 = 4.139 to x = x2 = 8.099. The difference between t1 (which equals 5) and t2 (which equals 9) is t2-t1 = 4. This does NOT signify "t=4". Understand?

rotchm wrote:

>> In my notation, as I have already said, I differentiate real time,
>> proper time, i.e. that which is perceived in the original frame of
>> reference where the event takes place, and I call it Tr.
>
> Irrelevant. Stay on topic. We are talking about two *values*, no matter
> where they come from.
> We have the values t1 & t2. What is the difference between these two
> values?

shut the fuck up. *I_fuck_your_ass!*

you unskilled imbecile, this supposed you have both values simultaneously.
Real life, you never can have that. Unlees you *assume* you known the
constant speed and acceleration for both things, same time. Moreover, since
you can't multitask your brain for the both remote targets, what you say is
100% impossible.

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-4, Oscar Alcheri wrote:
> rotchm wrote:

> shut the fuck up. *I_fuck_your_ass!*

Yes we know that you are a faggot...

rotchm wrote:

> On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-4, Oscar Alcheri wrote:
>> rotchm wrote:
>
>> shut the fuck up. *I_fuck_your_ass!*
>
> Yes we know that you are a faggot...

saying it in front of trudeau, gets you arrested. It's a crime in america
to accuse people being faggot. It has something to do with *inclusivity*,
in capitalist western world. To do that, you are instructed through
mass_media to smell your own poop, to include the transgenders into your
life.

Le 22/10/2022 à 16:51, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> No, the symbol t represents a coordinate, not a difference between coordinates.

It's stupid.
A coordinate is always a difference with the origin point.

> The trajectory we are discussing is described by the relation t = sqrt(x^2 +
> 2x/a) with a=1.052.

C'est ce que je dis.

To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

Mais vous refusez, par idéologie religieuse, ma notation.

C'est de la religion à la con, votre truc, de la religiosité.

Religiosité débile, paralysante, crucifiante.

> At the time t=5 the rocket is at x=4.139,

What's what I said.

> and at the time t=9 the rocket is at x=8.099.

Idem.

> Also, at the time t=4 the rocket is at x=3.161.

What's what I said.

t=1 x=0.429

t=2 x=1.264

t=3 x=2.196

t=7 x=6.114

t=9 x=8.099

t=10 x=9.095

Do you know the formula?

Ne la répétez pas, nous pourrions avoir des emmerdements.

x=(c²/a).[sqrt(1+a²To²/c²)-1]

Jean-Pierre Messager lit ces choses, et ses couilles frémissent.

R.H.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 8:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jean-Michel Affoinez wrote:

> A coordinate is always a difference with the origin point.

No it is not. A coordinate system does not need an origin.
If you did not know this, or cannot find a counter example of your claim, then you are severely lacking in their required knowledge to discuss physics..

> > The trajectory we are discussing is described by the relation t = sqrt(x^2 +
> > 2x/a) with a=1.052.
> C'est ce que je dis. To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
> Mais vous refusez, par idéologie religieuse, ma notation.

You religiously refuse to use the *appropriate*, known and well established notations and language. Why?

> Jean-Pierre Messager lit ces choses, et ses couilles frémissent.

Off topic.
Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

Le 23/10/2022 à 15:03, rotchm a écrit :
> On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 8:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jean-Michel Affoinez wrote:
>
>
>> A coordinate is always a difference with the origin point.
>
> No it is not. A coordinate system does not need an origin.
> If you did not know this, or cannot find a counter example of your claim, then
> you are severely lacking in their required knowledge to discuss physics.
>
>> > The trajectory we are discussing is described by the relation t = sqrt(x^2 +
>> > 2x/a) with a=1.052.
>> C'est ce que je dis. To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
>> Mais vous refusez, par idéologie religieuse, ma notation.
>
> You religiously refuse to use the *appropriate*, known and well established
> notations and language. Why?
>
>
>> Jean-Pierre Messager lit ces choses, et ses couilles frémissent.
>
> Off topic.
> Spam reported.
> I incite others to do the same.

Le 23/10/2022 à 15:03, rotchm a écrit :
> Off topic.
> Spam reported.
> I incite others to do the same.

Tu vas quand même pas oser photographier tes couilles?

Après toutes les saloperies dont Jean-Pierre Messager s'est rendu capable
sur usenet?

Tout cela vire au surréalisme.

To be continue...

R.H.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 5:12:09 AM UTC-7, Jean-Michel Affoinez wrote:
> > No, the symbol t represents a coordinate, not a difference between coordinates.
> It's stupid. A coordinate is always a difference with the origin point.

It is an important distinction, because the question referred to the difference in thebetween the time coordinates on the trajectory at x1 and x2, not between any point and the origin. The difference was Δt = t2 - t1 = 4. This is not the same as saying t=4, because that is just the time coordinates of an event on the trajectory at x=3.161, which is irrelevant to the question.

> [Yes, I now agree that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2-t1.]

Great. So let's try the original question again: If a rocket's trajectory is t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of the rocket on this segment is Δx/Δt = (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. Agreed?

Le 23/10/2022 à 18:33, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> Great. So let's try the original question again: If a rocket's trajectory is t
> = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have
> t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of the rocket on
> this segment is Δx/Δt = (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. Agreed?

No.

There is something difficult to understand here.
---
We said that when the rocket passes the point x=3 ly.

Its proper time marks Tr1=2.38818

Its improper time marks To=3.83450

Its speed is Vo=0.92910c
(Vr=2.51236c)
-----
When it goes to x=3.1 ly

Its own time marks Tr2=2.42766

Its improper time marks To2=3.93745

Its speed is Vo=0.93126c
(Vr=2.55389c)

---

That is to say that the speed will evolve from 0.92910c to 0.93126c during
this trip over 0.1 ly.

Therefore, how can we logically admit that the average is, as you say (but
there is necessarily an error on your side) that the average speed is
between the two points of this segment: Vo=0.971356?

R.H.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 11:34:38 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Great. So let's try the original question again: If a rocket's trajectory is t
> > = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have
> > t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of the rocket on
> > this segment is Δx/Δt = (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. Agreed?
>
> No.

Okay, let's take it one step at a time:

Do you agree that the change of the t coordinate of the rocket from t1 to t2 is Δt=t2-t1?

Do you agree that the change of the x coordinate of the rocket from x1 to x2 is Δx=x2-x1?

Do you agree that the ratio Δx/Δt for this segment equals (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356 ?

Le 23/10/2022 à 21:25, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 11:34:38 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > Great. So let's try the original question again: If a rocket's trajectory is t
>>
>> > = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we
>> have
>> > t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of the rocket
>> on
>> > this segment is Δx/Δt = (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. Agreed?
>>
>> No.
>
> Okay, let's take it one step at a time:
>
> Do you agree that the change of the t coordinate of the rocket from t1 to t2 is
> Δt=t2-t1?

This is what everyone instinctively believes they have the right to do.

ΔTo=3.93745-3.83450=0.10295

>
> Do you agree that the change of the x coordinate of the rocket from x1 to x2 is
> Δx=x2-x1?

This is what everyone instinctively believes they have the right to do.

Δx = x2-x1 = 3.1-3 = 0.1 ly

>
> Do you agree that the ratio Δx/Δt for this segment equals (x2 - x1) / (t2 -
> t1) = 0.971356 ?

This is what everyone instinctively believes they have the right to do.

Vo=0.1ly/0.10295years=0.971356c
But how to explain this, if Vo1=0.92910 and Vo2=0.93126 ? ? ?

What is happenned? ? ?

R.H.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:46:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> > Great. So let's try the original question again: If a rocket's trajectory is t
> >> > = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we
> >> > have t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of the rocket
> >> > on this segment is Δx/Δt = (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. Agreed?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Okay, let's take it one step at a time:
> > Do you agree that the change of the t coordinate of the rocket from t1 to t2 is
> > Δt=t2-t1?
> > Do you agree that the change of the x coordinate of the rocket from x1 to x2 is
> > Δx=x2-x1?
> > Do you agree that the ratio Δx/Δt for this segment equals (x2 - x1) / (t2 -
> > t1) = 0.971356 ?
>
> This is what everyone instinctively believes they have the right to do.

You misread the questions. I didn't ask if people instinctively believe this, I asked if you agree with those statements. I ask again: Do you agree with those three statements?

> But how to explain this, if Vo1=0.92910 and Vo2=0.93126 ? ? ?

Those values are incorrect, as you can see if you compute the ratio Δx/Δt for the segment from 3.0 to 3.1, and then for the segment from 3.00 to 3.01,and then for the segment from 3.000 to 3.001,and then for the segment from 3.0000 to 3.0001, and so on, the values converge on v1 = 0.970706, which is the coordinate speed at x1,t1. Likewise if we compute the ratio Δx/Δt for the segment from 3.09 to 3.10, and then for the segment from 3.099 to 3.100, and so on, the values converge on v2=0.972156, which is the coordinate speed at x2,t2.

Of course, anyone who passed high school math can compute these values much more efficiently, just by taking the derivative of the trajectory, but even people who didn't pass high school math can compute these values, it just takes a little more work.

Now, using these values for the coordinate velocities at the start and end of the segment, we can compute the elapsed proper time for the segment using your formula, which gives Δtau = 0.024426 years. We can then do this for all the other segments, and add them together, and get the total elapsed time of 3.14 years. Agreed?

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 2:34:38 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/10/2022 à 18:33, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>
> > Great. So let's try the original question again: If a rocket's trajectory is t
> > = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have
> > t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of the rocket on
> > this segment is Δx/Δt = (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. Agreed?
> No.
>
> There is something difficult to understand here. --
> We said that when the rocket passes the point x=3 ly.
> Its proper time marks Tr1=2.38818

Can you see that your comment is totally irrelevant to his question?
He did not ask about proper times. He specifically asked about coordinate time. Didn't you realize that?

> Its improper time marks To=3.83450

Why are you using new words for things that are already defined?
Here, he specified that the coordinate time t1 is 3.834504.
That is, the value on the clock they're indicates 3.834504 .

Try to focus and stay on topic.

> Its speed is Vo=0.92910c

Irrelevant to the topic. He specifically asked about the average velocity,
Which is defined as Δx/Δt = (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) .
Given the four parameters x1,x2,t1,t2, what is the average velocity?

Le 23/10/2022 à 22:24, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

>> > Okay, let's take it one step at a time:
>> > Do you agree that the change of the t coordinate of the rocket from t1 to t2
>> is
>> > Δt=t2-t1?
>> > Do you agree that the change of the x coordinate of the rocket from x1 to x2
>> is
>> > Δx=x2-x1?
>> > Do you agree that the ratio Δx/Δt for this segment equals (x2 - x1) / (t2 -
>> > t1) = 0.971356 ?
>>
>> This is what everyone instinctively believes they have the right to do.
>
> You misread the questions. I didn't ask if people instinctively believe this, I
> asked if you agree with those statements. I ask again: Do you agree with those
> three statements?

With the second: yes.

Obviously.

With the third, no.

Certainly.

With the second, I ask myself questions.

In short, where does the error of the relativists come from? In the first
or in the third?

>> But how to explain this, if Vo1=0.92910 and Vo2=0.93126 ? ? ?
>
> Those values are incorrect, as you can see if you compute the ratio Δx/Δt for
> the segment from 3.0 to 3.1, and then for the segment from 3.00 to 3.01,and then
> for the segment from 3.000 to 3.001,and then for the segment from 3.0000 to
> 3.0001, and so on, the values converge on v1 = 0.970706, which is the coordinate
> speed at x1,t1. Likewise if we compute the ratio Δx/Δt for the segment from
> 3.09 to 3.10, and then for the segment from 3.099 to 3.100, and so on, the values
> converge on v2=0.972156, which is the coordinate speed at x2,t2.
>
> Of course, anyone who passed high school math can compute these values much more
> efficiently, just by taking the derivative of the trajectory, but even people who
> didn't pass high school math can compute these values, it just takes a little more
> work.
>
> Now, using these values for the coordinate velocities at the start and end of
> the segment, we can compute the elapsed proper time for the segment using your
> formula, which gives Δtau = 0.024426 years. We can then do this for all the
> other segments, and add them together, and get the total elapsed time of 3.14
> years. Agreed?

No.

There is something wrong.

Your math may be right, but the physics seems wrong to me.

There is bound to be something wrong.

The speed calculated by the relativists is Vo=0.980c at the end of the
course (x=12ly).

According to your calculations, it will have to be much larger.

As for Δtau, between 3 and 3.1, I have Δtau=0.03948

Now I want to clarify something that I say over and over again. Your
calculations are correct.
and mine too.

This is NOT a math question.

It's a matter of space-time physics.

You're using a four-dimensional space-time (Minkowski space), and I think
that's what's going to cause problems with proper times.

I use a seven-dimensional space-time, where spaces remain spaces, and
where times remain times, in short a space-time (3x+4t). The equations are
sometimes the same, but sometimes not.

On proper times, they are not the same.

Now what to say? What to do? Wait for the experiments to decide.

But experimentation is not easy to do given the speeds to be reached and
the accelerations to be offered.

For the rest, that is to say for the non-accelerated relativistic part, I
don't even need experimental proof, because I have the predictions which
are coherent, but in addition, I don't have the enormous bias theories of
apparent speeds.

So on that, I sleep easy.

R.H.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 4:00:19 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Do you agree that the change of the t coordinate of the rocket from t1 to t2
>> is Δt=t2-t1?
>
> [No.]

You contradict yourself (again). You agreed to this before. Remember, you agreed that the change in coordinate time from t1=5 to t2=9 is Δt = t2-t1 = 4. So, I ask again, do you agree with the above statement?

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> This is NOT a math question.
> It's a matter of space-time physics.

No it is not. It is a question of language.
You do not seem to understand the concept of 'definition'.

If we say that Δt = t2-t1 and then give t1=5 & t2 = 9 then Δt = ?
You seem unable to parse that... You seem unable to accept the definition of Δt .
And then you change the topic to some other parameters and words.

> You're using a four-dimensional space-time (Minkowski space),

No he is not. He simply asked:

"x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have
t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of the rocket on
this segment is Δx/Δt = (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. Agreed? "

There is no relativity in there, no Minkowski space in there, no four-dimensional space-time in there; its
a simple highschool language question with very little math.

> and I think
> that's what's going to cause problems with proper times.

His question does not involve proper times. Stay on topic.

> Now what to say? What to do? Wait for the experiments to decide.

And we already told you, that these experiments have already been done, and they agree with special relativity predictions.
But you admit it to deny those experiments. You are admitting that you are a reality denier. But you didn't I that too...

Le 24/10/2022 à 01:45, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 4:00:19 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Do you agree that the change of the t coordinate of the rocket from t1 to t2
>>> is Δt=t2-t1?
>>
>> [No.]
>
> You contradict yourself (again). You agreed to this before. Remember, you
> agreed that the change in coordinate time from t1=5 to t2=9 is Δt = t2-t1 = 4.
> So, I ask again, do you agree with the above statement?

I did not say that.

I said that for dx=x2-x1 we definitely have 3.1-3=0.1ly. No problem here.

I said that for t2-t1, I was wondering.

I didn't say [NO]

On the other hand, I said that Vo=Δx/(t2-t1), it was false.

Which means I don't know if the error is really in (t2-t1) or in dividing
I did not say that.

I said that for dx=x2-x1 we definitely have 3.1-3=0.1ly.
I said that for t2-t1, I was wondering.

I didn't say [NO]

On the other hand, I said that Vo=dx/(t2-t1), it was false.

Which means I don't know if the error is really in (t2-t1) or in dividing
Δx by Δt.

Vo=0.9713c it is too mutch when Vo1~0.929c and Vo2~0.931c

R.H.

Le 24/10/2022 à 02:08, rotchm a écrit :

> "x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504

Absolutly.

> and at x2=3.1 we have
> t2=3.937453.

Yes.

>In terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of the rocket on
> this segment is Δx/Δt = (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. Agreed? "

No.

This is where something doesn't fit.

R.H.