If we accelerate a particle, it becomes difficult to know its position if
we know its speed, and to know its speed if we know its position.

Because Vo=x/To is a false equation

R.H.

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:41:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> If we accelerate a particle, it becomes difficult to know its position if
> we know its speed, and to know its speed if we know its position.
>
> Because Vo=x/To is a false equation
>
> R.H.

if speed is change of position...
they are both the same.

Mitchell Raemsch

Le 30/01/2023 à 18:50, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:41:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> If we accelerate a particle, it becomes difficult to know its position if
>> we know its speed, and to know its speed if we know its position.
>>
>> Because Vo=x/To is a false equation
>>
>> R.H.
>
> if speed is change of position...
> they are both the same.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Accelered speeds are not galilean speeds.

It's not the same.

Vr=x/Tr is true, but Vo=x/To becomes a false equation

Si l'on donne une position, la vitesse y sera fausse.

Si l'on donne une vitesse, on ne saura plus à quel moment la particule
est passée par là.

Je pense que pour résoudre tous ces problèmes, il faut penser comme
Hachel, c'est à dire avec les notions de Vr, Tr.

Là, il n'y a pas de leurre possible sur les temps et les vitesses
observables (To,Vo).

R.H.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:41:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> If we accelerate a particle, it becomes difficult to know its position
>> if we know its speed, and to know its speed if we know its position.
>> Because Vo=x/To is a false equation R.H.
>
> if speed is change of position... they are both the same.

let me see your uniform.

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 10:15:15 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 30/01/2023 à 18:50, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:41:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> If we accelerate a particle, it becomes difficult to know its position if
> >> we know its speed, and to know its speed if we know its position.
> >>
> >> Because Vo=x/To is a false equation
> >>
> >> R.H.
> >
> > if speed is change of position...
> > they are both the same.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Accelered speeds are not galilean speeds.
>
> It's not the same.

Sure it is. Speeds are speeds changing or not.
Inertial frames have no way to have steady speed
if gravity is everywhere influencing change in motion
of everything.

show any example of an inertial frame in reality
and I will show you why it is not... in physics non
steady is the rule...

>
> Vr=x/Tr is true, but Vo=x/To becomes a false equation
>
> Si l'on donne une position, la vitesse y sera fausse.
>
> Si l'on donne une vitesse, on ne saura plus à quel moment la particule
> est passée par là.
>
> Je pense que pour résoudre tous ces problèmes, il faut penser comme
> Hachel, c'est à dire avec les notions de Vr, Tr.
>
> Là, il n'y a pas de leurre possible sur les temps et les vitesses
> observables (To,Vo).
>
> R.H.

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 12:13:43 PM UTC-8, Darrel Vaccaro wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:41:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> If we accelerate a particle, it becomes difficult to know its position
> >> if we know its speed, and to know its speed if we know its position.
> >> Because Vo=x/To is a false equation R.H.
> >
> > if speed is change of position... they are both the same.

If you measure position you are measuring momentum's change of position.

On 1/30/2023 12:41 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Because Vo=x/To is a false equation

What is this original velocity and time you write about?

Le 31/01/2023 à 02:30, Volney a écrit :
> On 1/30/2023 12:41 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Because Vo=x/To is a false equation
>
> What is this original velocity and time you write about?

If I want to calculate the height of a building, I just need to measure
the length of its shadow.

I then place a 1 meter pole vertically, and measure the length of its
shadow.

Let's say I find 50 cm.

I then measure the shadow of the building, and I find 50 meters.

Then I know the real height of the building.

This because I learned trigonometry.

I simply know that the shadow is not the reality of the thing, but that it
can allow me to know the thing.

The same is true with the speed of light, and all relativistic observable
speeds.

It's not the reality of things, but it can make me know the thing.

Any observable speed is not the true speed (be careful not to confuse with
the notion of absolute speed) but we can give a relation between
observable speed and real speed.

This relation is Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

The reverse being:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

It is this ignorance of physicists that leads to most errors and anomalies
in their principles.

They confuse the observable with the real, Einstein with Poincaré, Saint
Paul with Jesus Christ, success with talent, my balls with the pope's
balls.

Their confusion is total.

They confuse everything.

R.H.

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 5:13:55 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 31/01/2023 à 02:30, Volney a écrit :
> > On 1/30/2023 12:41 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> >> Because Vo=x/To is a false equation
> >
> > What is this original velocity and time you write about?
> If I want to calculate the height of a building, I just need to measure
> the length of its shadow.
>
> I then place a 1 meter pole vertically, and measure the length of its
> shadow.
>
> Let's say I find 50 cm.
>
> I then measure the shadow of the building, and I find 50 meters.
>
> Then I know the real height of the building.
>
> This because I learned trigonometry.
>
> I simply know that the shadow is not the reality of the thing, but that it
> can allow me to know the thing.
>
> The same is true with the speed of light, and all relativistic observable
> speeds.
>
> It's not the reality of things, but it can make me know the thing.
>
> Any observable speed is not the true speed (be careful not to confuse with
> the notion of absolute speed) but we can give a relation between
> observable speed and real speed.
>
> This relation is Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>
> The reverse being:
> Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
>
> It is this ignorance of physicists that leads to most errors and anomalies
> in their principles.

No. You simply don't understand physics.

> They confuse the observable with the real, Einstein with Poincaré, Saint
> Paul with Jesus Christ, success with talent, my balls with the pope's
> balls.
>
> Their confusion is total.
>
> They confuse everything.

No, they don't. The problem is on your side.

--
Jan

Le 31/01/2023 à 15:00, JanPB a écrit :

> No. You simply don't understand physics.

> No, they don't. The problem is on your side.

Magnifico!

> Jan

Nan, en toutes choses, il faut être honnête.

C'est magnifique.
Jan : US President 2024 !!!

La question, cependant reste entière... Mais qu'est ce qu'il se passe?

R.H.

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 6:21:55 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 31/01/2023 à 15:00, JanPB a écrit :
>
> > No. You simply don't understand physics.
> > No, they don't. The problem is on your side.
> Magnifico!
>
> > Jan
>
> Nan, en toutes choses, il faut être honnête.
>
> C'est magnifique.
>
> Jan : US President 2024 !!!
>
> La question, cependant reste entière... Mais qu'est ce qu'il se passe?
>
>
> R.H.

How does science measure a particle moving from outside their accelerator?
Do particals give off light and how would we know the light came
from the particle? If subatomic particles landed what about them
could leave a trace?

On January 31, Richard Hachel wrote:
> If I want to calculate the height of a building, I just need to measure
> the length of its shadow.
> I then place a 1 meter pole vertically, and measure the length of its
> shadow.

Suppose you have a barometer. How would you calculate
the height of the building?

--
Rich

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 12:21:45 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> On January 31, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > If I want to calculate the height of a building, I just need to measure
> > the length of its shadow.
> > I then place a 1 meter pole vertically, and measure the length of its
> > shadow.

> Suppose you have a barometer. How would you calculate
> the height of the building?

Drop the barometer from the top of the building and note the amount of time it takes to hit the ground. Apply Newton's law of gravitation and you will have your answer!