Hachel's principle.

"If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
paths, their proper times will remain equal."
It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.

R.H.

On 2022-11-12 09:42:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Hachel's principle.
>
> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.

Baez crackpot index:

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about
the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Le 12/11/2022 à 11:19, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2022-11-12 09:42:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Hachel's principle.
>>
>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
>> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
>
> Baez crackpot index:
>
> 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
>
> 25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about
> the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

If you knew how much I don't give a damn about Baez's bullshit, who
whistles well, but never sings.

R.H.

On Saturday, 12 November 2022 at 11:19:52 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-11-12 09:42:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
> > Hachel's principle.
> >
> > "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
> > identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
> > It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
> > Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
> Baez crackpot index:
>
> 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

And don't forget to add your fellow idiot Tom 5 points
for every word he writes in capital letters.

On 2022-11-12 10:24:07 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 12/11/2022 à 11:19, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2022-11-12 09:42:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>
>>> Hachel's principle.
>>>
>>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
>>> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>>> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>>> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
>>
>> Baez crackpot index:
>> 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
>>
>> 25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about
>> the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
>
> If you knew how much I don't give a damn about Baez's bullshit, who
> whistles well, but never sings.

That's why no one will ever take your handwaving seriously.

>

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Hachel's principle.
>
> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
> paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>
> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>
> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
>
> R.H.

There is only one proper time, ...

de other guys watch don't count.

If you're wearing two watches, which one has the correct time?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 10:25:54 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > Hachel's principle.
> >
> > "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
> > paths, their proper times will remain equal."
> >
> > It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
> >
> > Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
> >
> > R.H.
> There is only one proper time, ...

No. There is more than one time at a black hole.
Time ends and starts over...

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> de other guys watch don't count.
>
>
> If you're wearing two watches, which one has the correct time?
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > Hachel's principle.
> >
> > "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
> > paths, their proper times will remain equal."
> >
> > It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
> >
> > Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
> >
> > R.H.
>
> There is only one proper time, ...
>
> de other guys watch don't count.
>
> If you're wearing two watches, which one has the correct time?

In other words, If I'm wearing two watches, in equal observable times, and I'm traveling in identical
paths, which watch has the proper time?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:

> In other words, If I'm wearing two watches, in equal observable times,
> and I'm traveling in identical paths, which watch has the proper time?

the other one. Here you have, for instance, a lying polaker bitch in
*8_seconds*. A lying polaker before the entire world, on record. These
modrafaka bitches had *extermination_camps* on their territory, before
Hitler entered the shithole.

The host of Poland vote at the Eurovision Song Contest shouted ＂Slava
Ukraine!"
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/ICcmHmYyz3qr/

here's how these inbreed nazis has to be treated like. Putting a nazi flag
before the flag of the country, you nazi pigs.

Just say 'No' to Slava Ukraini and NATO (Or go team Z)
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/X3Ol7JjMFqPO/

here's another liar, probably a polaker bitch, promoting imbecility at
home, calling their instated paid comedian actor for "president"

Standing ovation for Zelensky in the US Congress. Pelosi："Slava
Ukraina"https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/esupg9lnTS8z/

slavic people in ukraine say say what they really think of their homo
leader
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/VgtxqIsSByfy/
https://seed128.%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/coNcAQCZcRJy/VgtxqIsSByfy.mp4

the "government" of "uKraine", *Kvartal_95_Studio* (wikipedia)

BANNED ON YOUTUBE - SLAVA UKRANI!
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/RRw97sO87Usa/

'Slava Ukraini' is a Nazi war-cry
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/mAF5585aWTPC/

On 11/12/2022 2:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>> Hachel's principle.
>>>
>>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
>>> paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>>>
>>> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>>>
>>> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>
>> There is only one proper time, ...
>>
>> de other guys watch don't count.
>>
>> If you're wearing two watches, which one has the correct time?
>
>
> In other words, If I'm wearing two watches, in equal observable times, and I'm traveling in identical
> paths, which watch has the proper time?

It doesn't matter. Pick one and tell me why the other one doesn't
show the proper time/

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:42:26 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Hachel's principle.
>
> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
> paths, their proper times will remain equal."

What is "observable time"? What does travelling "identical paths" mean?
Just the trajectories are the same? Or the trajectories and the speeds
at every point of the trajectories are the same?

In physics proper time is the arc length of the trajectory when plotted
in the 4D spacetime. This means proper times of the two object are only
guaranteed to be the same if their entire movement is the same (same
3D paths in space with identical speeds at every point of the path).

But this is just a generic well-known fact, not any "Hachel's principle".

> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.

As stated it's neither correct nor incorrect, it's actually not even wrong
due to its use of undefined terms.

> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.

Nobody is shocked, trust me.

--
Jan

Le 13/11/2022 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:42:26 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Hachel's principle.
>>
>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
>> paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>
> What is "observable time"? What does travelling "identical paths" mean?
> Just the trajectories are the same? Or the trajectories and the speeds
> at every point of the trajectories are the same?
>
> In physics proper time is the arc length of the trajectory when plotted
> in the 4D spacetime. This means proper times of the two object are only
> guaranteed to be the same if their entire movement is the same (same
> 3D paths in space with identical speeds at every point of the path).
>
> But this is just a generic well-known fact, not any "Hachel's principle".
>
>> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>
> As stated it's neither correct nor incorrect, it's actually not even wrong
> due to its use of undefined terms.
>
>> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
>
> Nobody is shocked, trust me.
>
> --

Of course it is, it's shocking, because that's not what the theory of
relativity as taught says.

I talked about it for a long time with several people here.

They all consider that proper times will no longer be the same.

I take the well-known example of Tau Ceti.

We're going to arrange for two rockets (it's a thought experiment),
leaving at the same time, from the same place.

They start from the ground, and will connect Tau Ceti (12ly).

One starts according to the accelerated example that we have long treated
here, and which is 10m/s².

Let a=1.052 ly/y² as Stan Fultoni rightly points out.

The other will start with a constant real speed of 2.5122c.

They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.

Don't forget what Hachel says (that's me): "events coinjoint in one frame
of reference are cojoint in all".

If they leave at the same time, they leave at the same time in all the
observing reference frames.

If they arrive at the same time, they arrive at the same time in all the
observing reference frames.

I don't even have to explain it, it's so trivial and obvious.

I then said that the path being the same, the observable time (ie
terrestrial) being the same, the proper times will be the same.

We come back to the dramatic error that Stan makes (because he learned the
theory from the mouth of his teachers) and which is to believe that the
proper times are much shorter than I say in the accelerated frames of
reference.

The error is there.

Stan makes a conceptual error in his integration, not in the calculation,
I always have the same answer as him no matter what I integrate.

But the problem is not there.

You can't integrate, and it doesn't work that way.

Just as one cannot add relativistic velocities together as Galileo or
Newton would have done.

Do you understand what I'm explaining?

I'm not asking to be believed. I ask, at least that we understood
perfectly what I wanted to say the day when the experiments will be able
to show that indeed, certain things are wrong.

R.H.

On 11/12/22 3:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>
> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.

No. There are too many undefined terms in it.

> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the
> world.

Not really. With minor corrections a very similar statement is correct
(albeit tautological):

If two timelike objects travel along identical paths [#], then between
any given pair of points on their (common) path their elapsed proper
times are equal.

[#] Here path is through spacetime.

This is tautological, and thus not very useful, because as stated the
two objects arrive simultaneously at any given point along their common
path -- the two objects travel as one.

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 06:05:29 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/12/22 3:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
> > identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
> >
> > It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
> No. There are too many undefined terms in it.
> > Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the
> > world.
> Not really. With minor corrections a very similar statement is correct
> (albeit tautological):
>
> If two timelike objects travel along identical paths [#], then between
> any given pair of points on their (common) path their elapsed proper
> times are equal.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of
idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in forebidden by your
bunch of idiots old seconds.

Den 12.11.2022 10:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Hachel's principle.
>
> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>
> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.

Another, not equally vacuous, "Hachel's principle":

On Saturday, November 5, Richard Hachel wrote:

"For the trajectory t=sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a)
we have dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)"

:-D

>
> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.

Not really.
Very few will notice, and those who do will be only mildly amused
and think: "Yet another ignorant crank."

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 2022-11-12 23:42:52 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> I take the well-known example of Tau Ceti.
>
> We're going to arrange for two rockets (it's a thought experiment),
> leaving at the same time, from the same place.
>
> They start from the ground, and will connect Tau Ceti (12ly).
>
> One starts according to the accelerated example that we have long
> treated here, and which is 10m/s².
>
> Let a=1.052 ly/y² as Stan Fultoni rightly points out.
>
> The other will start with a constant real speed of 2.5122c.
>
> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
>
> Don't forget what Hachel says (that's me): "events coinjoint in one
> frame of reference are cojoint in all".
>
> If they leave at the same time, they leave at the same time in all the
> observing reference frames.
>
> If they arrive at the same time, they arrive at the same time in all
> the observing reference frames.

However, their paths between those two events is not the same in all
reference frames. The first rocket travels along a curved path in most
reference frames. The second rocent travels along a straight path in
every reference frame.

Mikko

Le 13/11/2022 à 06:05, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> On 11/12/22 3:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
>> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>>
>> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>
> No. There are too many undefined terms in it.

In Einstein description, yes.

In mine no.

"If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."

R.H.

Le 13/11/2022 à 06:05, Tom Roberts a écrit :

> This is tautological, the two objects travel as one.

I think I'm going to commit murder.

> Tom Roberts

HELP!!!

R.H.

Le 13/11/2022 à 09:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 12.11.2022 10:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Hachel's principle.
>>
>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
>> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>>
>> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>
> Another, not equally vacuous, "Hachel's principle":
>
> On Saturday, November 5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> "For the trajectory t=sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a)
> we have dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)"
>
> :-D

I didn't write that.

For these two equations, I wrote, and specifying well:

To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

I am talking about the terrestrial observable time for an object
accelerated according to a, and over a chosen distance x.

I then wrote that the instantaneous observable speed of the object (rocket
or particle) was, at any point of the journey:
dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

I begged my readers (and you too) to please understand that these things
are correct, even if they seem strange.

We speak on the one hand of a global time To, and on the other of an
instantaneous speed Vo.

The problem is much less funny than you seem to believe.

You postulate that one can make Galilean additions on a problem where they
become false.

You postulate that we can make simple mathematical integraions.

I say you can do it, if you dye it, but the results will be wrong.

R.H.

Le 13/11/2022 à 11:49, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2022-11-12 23:42:52 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> I take the well-known example of Tau Ceti.
>>
>> We're going to arrange for two rockets (it's a thought experiment),
>> leaving at the same time, from the same place.
>>
>> They start from the ground, and will connect Tau Ceti (12ly).
>>
>> One starts according to the accelerated example that we have long
>> treated here, and which is 10m/s².
>>
>> Let a=1.052 ly/y² as Stan Fultoni rightly points out.
>>
>> The other will start with a constant real speed of 2.5122c.
>>
>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
>>
>> Don't forget what Hachel says (that's me): "events coinjoint in one
>> frame of reference are cojoint in all".
>>
>> If they leave at the same time, they leave at the same time in all the
>> observing reference frames.
>>
>> If they arrive at the same time, they arrive at the same time in all
>> the observing reference frames.
>
> However, their paths between those two events is not the same in all
> reference frames. The first rocket travels along a curved path in most
> reference frames. The second rocent travels along a straight path in
> every reference frame.
>
> Mikko

When I talk about the same path, you will notice that I didn't use the
confusing term "trajectory".

The term trajctoire can be confused with the term trajectory in
space-time.

I'm not talking about that.

I beg you to read carefully what I wrote.

Nobody reads right, although I write right, and very careful what I say
because I know it's hard on your indoctrinated brains.

You don't want to get out of it, and for that, you make me say what I
didn't say.

I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):

They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.

I didn't say "the same space-time".

Please, be awake and lucid.

R.H.

Mikko wrote:

> However, their paths between those two events is not the same in all
> reference frames. The first rocket travels along a curved path in most
> reference frames. The second rocent travels along a straight path in
> every reference frame.

Trivially false.

PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):
>
> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
>
> I didn't say "the same space-time".

And that's your mistake.

They don't follow the same paths through spacetime.

An observer will see the constant speed traveler move ahead of the
accelerating traveler, then the accelerating traveler gains speed and at
some point the distance between them is no longer increasing and then it
starts decreasing, until the distance reaches 0 at the destination.

At no point other than at the start and end of the journey are the two
travelers at the same location at the same time.

Obviously different paths through spacetime.
>
> Please, be awake and lucid.
>
> R.H.

Le 13/11/2022 à 17:38, Volney a écrit :
> On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):
>>
>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
>>
>> I didn't say "the same space-time".
>
> And that's your mistake.
>
> They don't follow the same paths through spacetime.

Et mes couilles, elles suivent le même chemin, dans l'espace-temps?

J'ai beau les supplier d'arrêter.

Ils continuent.

Que puis-je faire?

Je les supplie, une fois, deux fois, trois fois, d'arrêter...

Ils continuent...

Mille fois, sic mille ans...

Quoi faire?

Suis-je Superman?

Non, je ne suis pas Superman. Je ne viens pas de Krypton, et je ne vole
pas dans les airs.

Cela, ils ne le comprennent pas.

Merde, c'est pourtant pas con à comprendre.

Ils veulent quoi, les hommes, un Messie qui les soumets à grandes
claques dans la gueule,
à coup de Knout dans les caves nazies?

Oui, je le dis avec des larmes dans les yeux, c'est ça qu'ils veulent,
les bandes de pauvres cons.

Bien sûr que oui.

R.H.

On 11/13/2022 11:51 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 13/11/2022 à 17:38, Volney a écrit :
>> On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):
>>>
>>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
>>>
>>> I didn't say "the same space-time".
>>
>> And that's your mistake.
>>
>> They don't follow the same paths through spacetime.
>
> Et mes couilles, elles suivent le même chemin, dans l'espace-temps?
>
> J'ai beau les supplier d'arrêter.
>
> Ils continuent.
>
> Que puis-je faire?
>
> Je les supplie, une fois, deux fois, trois fois, d'arrêter...
>
> Ils continuent...
>
> Mille fois, sic mille ans...
> Quoi faire?
>
> Suis-je Superman?
> Non, je ne suis pas Superman. Je ne viens pas de Krypton, et je ne vole
> pas dans les airs.
>
> Cela, ils ne le comprennent pas.
> Merde, c'est pourtant pas con à comprendre.
> Ils veulent quoi, les hommes, un Messie qui les soumets à grandes
> claques dans la gueule, à coup de Knout dans les caves nazies?
> Oui, je le dis avec des larmes dans les yeux, c'est ça qu'ils veulent,
> les bandes de pauvres cons.
>
> Bien sûr que oui.
> R.H.
>
>
>
So you agree they don't take the same paths through spacetime.

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 17:57:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/13/2022 11:51 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 13/11/2022 à 17:38, Volney a écrit :
> >> On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>
> >>> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):
> >>>
> >>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't say "the same space-time".
> >>
> >> And that's your mistake.
> >>
> >> They don't follow the same paths through spacetime.
> >
> > Et mes couilles, elles suivent le même chemin, dans l'espace-temps?
> >
> > J'ai beau les supplier d'arrêter.
> >
> > Ils continuent.
> >
> > Que puis-je faire?
> >
> > Je les supplie, une fois, deux fois, trois fois, d'arrêter...
> >
> > Ils continuent...
> >
> > Mille fois, sic mille ans...
> > Quoi faire?
> >
> > Suis-je Superman?
> > Non, je ne suis pas Superman. Je ne viens pas de Krypton, et je ne vole
> > pas dans les airs.
> >
> > Cela, ils ne le comprennent pas.
> > Merde, c'est pourtant pas con à comprendre.
> > Ils veulent quoi, les hommes, un Messie qui les soumets à grandes
> > claques dans la gueule, à coup de Knout dans les caves nazies?
> > Oui, je le dis avec des larmes dans les yeux, c'est ça qu'ils veulent,
> > les bandes de pauvres cons.
> >
> > Bien sûr que oui.
> > R.H.
> >
> >
> >
> So you agree they don't take the same paths through spacetime.

Does he also agree that adjusting clocks
to your ISO idiocy means putting them into
some "Newton mode"?