Le 08/03/2023 à 08:01, Volney a écrit :
> "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter
> how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

That's what I'm saying, it takes external perfection, which is
experimental proof.

On that everyone is in agreement: everyone.

But there, where a great drama in the history of science happens, is when
all the arrogant people in the world believe they are authorized to do
without internal perfection, that is to say the beauty and logic of theory
in order to adore chimeras, copper goats, or golden calves.

Obviously both kinds of perfection are needed.

Certainly, if one were to experience Langevin's traveler, one would say
"Hurrah, the experiment shows that the theory is good".

However, this is false, experience will be right, obviously, but the
theory is false.

The theory does not have a single chance of being correct, because it is
contradictory with the covariance of the apparent velocities, and the
internal theoretical perfection does not exist for a second.

Moreover, it will remain contradictory with the instantaneous transfers of
information of quantum mechanics.

Thereupon will come Hachel, who will say, repeat, that he does not have
these contradictions in his relativistic kinetics, that his theory is very
practical, logical, without imperfection, neither internal nor external.

The problem will quickly become human, out of arrogance and laziness, we
will NOT even try to understand ONE of its equations.

Not even internal consistency.

Human behavior is like that.

I've seen it in science, but I've also seen it in theology, sociology,
medicine, and criminology.

The man is like that.

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas :
il n'y a pas de violence qu'avec des armes : il y a des situations de
violence."
Abbé Pierre
Δ₀₁₂"<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=_0qrvtrE_PtDnGcaXIPRmBnsb5c@jntp>

On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 16:00:36 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 08/03/2023 à 08:01, Volney a écrit :
> > "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter
> > how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
> That's what I'm saying, it takes external perfection, which is
> experimental proof.
>
> On that everyone is in agreement: everyone.

Bullshit. As usual.

On March 6, JanPB wrote:
>> Note that the above paragraph is relevant to the well-known (and much
>> misunderstood) Bell's Spaceship Paradox:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox
>
> Something is wrong here. The string breaking or not cannot
> depend on what measurements are being made. It either breaks or it
> doesn't, according to all observers, accelerated or not.

The Minkowski diagrams on that Wikipedia page answer Mike's question,
and refute his claims. His own cite!
> Any standard relativistic analysis shows that it will break(*), although
> different observers will assign the cause differently, due to the
> kinematic effects. It's a bit like different observers assigning
> the E and B fields differently. But in all cases the actual physical
> results are always predicted consistently in the end.
>
> (*)Wikipedia quotes some people who should have known better.

The Wiki page is screwy. The string breaks because it's
under tension, that's all. The length contraction is strictly a
measurement phenomenon, no physical effect.

--
Rich

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:35:04 PM UTC+1, RichD wrote:
> On March 6, JanPB wrote:
> >> Note that the above paragraph is relevant to the well-known (and much
> >> misunderstood) Bell's Spaceship Paradox:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox
> >
> > Something is wrong here. The string breaking or not cannot
> > depend on what measurements are being made. It either breaks or it
> > doesn't, according to all observers, accelerated or not.
>
> The Minkowski diagrams on that Wikipedia page answer Mike's question,
> and refute his claims. His own cite!

Mike would respond by saying that this conclusion follows from considering
the simultaneity space of the rear (say) spaceship, and that that simultaneity
space corresponds to the viewpoint of a momentarily co-moving _inertial_
observer, not the accelerated one sitting inside the spaceship, hence
it's invalid.

Of course one of the basic assumptions of relativity regarding
accelerated motion is that the two are the same but Mike just
rejects that (without any justification AFAICT).

That's why I proposed to consider the string's (or the rubber band's)
relative space which is not tied to any inertial co-moving frame, only
to the spaceship's worldline, without considering any simultaneity
space a priori. Instead, one assembles the metric along the string
from one of its infinitesimal segment to the next. The resulting 1D metric,
parametrised by the spaceship's proper time (say; could be some
coordinate time, it doesn't matter much which), exhibits expansion along
that line.

> > Any standard relativistic analysis shows that it will break(*), although
> > different observers will assign the cause differently, due to the
> > kinematic effects. It's a bit like different observers assigning
> > the E and B fields differently. But in all cases the actual physical
> > results are always predicted consistently in the end.
> >
> > (*)Wikipedia quotes some people who should have known better.
> The Wiki page is screwy. The string breaks because it's
> under tension, that's all. The length contraction is strictly a
> measurement phenomenon, no physical effect.

According to the stationary observer the string breaks because
it Lorentz contracts. That's how his kinematic accounting works
in the relativity model. The end result is very physical. So in relativity
theory the contraction is a kinematic effect due to certain
properties of space and time and is very real _for that observer._
It's very likely that in a future theory (that combines GR and QM)
this effect won't be just declared kinematic but a result of something
going on underneath which we do not have a handle on yet.

A standard example of this sort of thing happening in the past
(because it happened many many times) is counting quantities
of heat without knowing what heat was. That counting worked
well nevertheless. Or the least action principle which was
"just so" until QFT provided a model underneath (Feynman's
Lagrangian approach). Etc.

Of course to this day neither heat counting nor the classical
least action principle ever went away. Like wise, Newton's,
Maxwell's, and Einstein's theories will never go away.

--
Jan

On 2023-03-07 23:24:29 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 08/03/2023 à 00:13, JanPB a écrit :
>>
>> Mike says the spaceship (accelerating) observers won't measure the
>> spaceship separation as increasing. So I proposed to simply get
>> a length of rope or runner band between them and see what happens.
>
> N.B. Si à la place de la corde, on met une très longue fusée qui va de
> A à B, la fusée ne cassera pas si on l'accélère.
> C'est une expérience de pensée, mais on voit bien que si la grande
> fusée unique ne casse pas, pourquoi la corde (rigide ou pas) casserait?
> R.H.

In that situation it is not possible to accelerate A and B independently.
Consequently, an accelerometer at A indicates a greater acceleration than
one at B.

Mikko

Le 09/03/2023 à 12:46, Mikko a écrit :
> In that situation it is not possible to accelerate A and B independently.
> Consequently, an accelerometer at A indicates a greater acceleration than
> one at B.

You can speed up whatever you want.

All this is only the effect of perspective.

In the frame of the accelerated object, the object is at rest.

It doesn't break.

R.H.

On 3/9/2023 6:53 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> In the frame of the accelerated object, the object is at rest.

No, it is not, since an accelerated frame or object is not inertial.

On 3/8/2023 10:00 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 08/03/2023 à 08:01, Volney a écrit :
>>     "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter
>>     how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
>
> That's what I'm saying, it takes external perfection, which is
> experimental proof.

No, that is NOT what he was saying. He was saying it doesn't matter if a
theory is "beautiful", if it predicts incorrectly, it's simply wrong.

On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 16:48:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/8/2023 10:00 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 08/03/2023 à 08:01, Volney a écrit :
> >> "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter
> >> how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.."
> >
> > That's what I'm saying, it takes external perfection, which is
> > experimental proof.
> No, that is NOT what he was saying. He was saying it doesn't matter if a
> theory is "beautiful", if it predicts incorrectly, it's simply wrong.

What to say about an ugly theory predicting wrong,
like The Shit of your idiot guru.

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:53:05 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 09/03/2023 à 12:46, Mikko a écrit :
> > In that situation it is not possible to accelerate A and B independently.
> > Consequently, an accelerometer at A indicates a greater acceleration than
> > one at B.
> You can speed up whatever you want.
>
> All this is only the effect of perspective.
>
> In the frame of the accelerated object, the object is at rest.

In the frame of the rear spaceship, the front spaceship moves away
so the rope breaks. This is how relativity models this situation.

--
Jan

Le 09/03/2023 à 16:48, Volney a écrit :
> On 3/8/2023 10:00 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 08/03/2023 à 08:01, Volney a écrit :
>>>     "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter
>>>     how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
>>
>> That's what I'm saying, it takes external perfection, which is
>> experimental proof.
>
> No, that is NOT what he was saying. He was saying it doesn't matter if a
> theory is "beautiful", if it predicts incorrectly, it's simply wrong.

That's not what I'm criticizing.

I know very well that a theory, as beautiful as it is, can be considered
false if experimentation shows that the results are not those expected.

But here, with good old Doctor Hachel, the problem is different; what does
good old Doctor Hachel say?

He says that the best for a theory is to have internal beauty, and
external beauty.

He says that internal beauty is the logic and consistency of theory.

He says external beauty is experimental confirmation.

Already, just here, many no longer agree, why?

Because what I say is not beautiful?

Noooot at all! But because it's Richard Hachel who says it and it's
forbidden to say that when you're just a dark little French shit who got
his doctorate and Nobel while sleeping.

However, if we wanted to scratch a little, we would realize that the
current theory is neither beautiful, nor true, neither experimental, nor
logical.

One would realize that this theory does not predict experimental studies
of instantaneous transmission of information, and therefore that
experimentally it is not true, externally.

We would realize that in apparent speeds, the logical covariance is not
respected, which is absurd and makes the theory not beautiful internally.

On the other hand, we would realize that everything Hachel says everywhere
is verified, and that we NEVER find a contradiction anywhere internally.

One day we will have to ask the real question, which is only a human
problem.

"But why don't we listen to him? Why is his breath so foul? Why is the
size of his cock so frightening and terrorizing hundreds of users on
social networks?"

From a more down to earth and more practical point of view: "But what is
going on?"

R.H.

Le 09/03/2023 à 17:52, JanPB a écrit :
> In the frame of the rear spaceship, the front spaceship moves away
> so the rope breaks. This is how relativity models this situation.

Thank you for your clear and precise answer.

Simply, I would point out to you that your answer is placed in the
accepted theory.

It is necessary, when studying this theory, to take baby steps.

As the excellent Paul B. Andersen says.

So we resume like babies (I beg you not to be arrogant, and to do as tiny
babies who are learning to walk do).

GOOD.

Now that you agree with me, to make the little baby, let's take some milk
slowly.

We place two rockets on an axis Ox, one B at two light years from O,
the other A at least two light years from O.

From O we will launch a beep for the start in accelerated movement (say
a=10m/s²=1.052ly/y²)

To avoid problems of longitudinal Doppler effects and falsify the
experiment, we place a transverse observer very far away (let's say 15
billion light years).

The rockets will move from left to right in the Ox direction.

Unless it is absurd, or fanciful, it goes without saying that the two
rockets will have exactly the same movement, and that L will always remain
constant, even if after 12 years of travel, we will have staggering speeds
(that I have given here, and which are not those too excessive given by
relativistic physicists who allow themselves to be grigged by Minkowski's
space-time, space-time not really compatible with well-understood Lorentz
transformations).

There will therefore be no break in the rope, if a rope is placed.

On the other hand, if one places oneself in A or if one places oneself in
B, apparent variations of L will occur.

The rope will seem to remain of the same dimension for A for a time t=AB/c
then gradually it will "seem" to contract, and to contract more and more
according to the passage of time and the increase in speed, A always going
a bit faster than B so the equivalent acceleration seems later.

Conversely, the rope will seem a little larger for B after a time AB/c
then the length will "seem" to stretch more and more according to the
speed.

But this is a relativistic logical aberration.

The rope does not slack on one side, nor stretch on the other. A neutral
observer, placed very far and transversely, will not notice anything
special in the evolution of the rockets.

All the equations of what deals with accelerations in special relativity I
have given them.

I ask you to refer to it.

R.H.

On 3/6/23 11:25 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> Two perpetually inertial observers (IO1 and IO2), perpetually
> mutually stationary with one another, are initially co-located with
> two separated observers (AO1 and AO2), with separation "L". AO1 and
> AO2 are about to begin a constant (according to them) acceleration
> "A" (with the separation in the direction of their acceleration).
> AO1 and AO2 KNOW that their acceleration is "A", because they each
> are carrying an accelerometer that confirms it. IO1 and IO2 will
> conclude that AO1 and AO2 maintain the separation "L" during the
> accelerations.

Yes to all that. Of course IO1 and IO2 need assistants at rest in their
inertial rest frame to measure the separation between AO1 and AO2 after
they start accelerating -- IO1 and IO2 are measuring in their inertial
rest frame and AO1 and AO2 will have moved away from IO1 and IO2.

> And AO1 and AO2 will agree with that: AO1 and AO2 conclude that their
> separation remains constant at "L" during the acceleration.

THis is NOT true if they measure their PROPER separation -- in your
scenario, constant separation happens ONLY for measurements in the
inertial rest frame of IO1 and IO2. It is highly artificial for AO1 and
AO2 to use that inertial frame for such a measurement, and it does not
measure their PROPER separation.

> But two other inertial observers, IO3 and IO4, who are momentarily
> co-located with AO1 and AO2 at any time later in the trip, will NOT
> agree that the separation "L" is constant: they will say that it has
> increased since the start of the trip.

Yes. IO3 and IO4 must be at rest in the same inertial frame to measure
their separation; that implies they cannot be co-moving with both AO1
and AO2.

If AO1 and AO2 measure their PROPER separation they will agree
that their separation has increased.

> [...] But it's normal in special relativity for an accelerating
> observer to agree with the inertial observer who is momentarily
> co-located with him at at some instant ... that's what the CMIF
> simultaneity method IS.

CMIF = co-moving inertial frame. Using an inertial frame co-moving with
A01 at a given instant is how AO1 measures proper quantities AT THAT
INSTANT. This includes the proper distance to AO2 at that instant, and
AO1 will obtain a separation larger than L. AO2 can use the same
technique to measure the proper distance to AO1, and will also obtain a
value greater than L. If AO1 and AO2 both do this at the same value on
their clocks, the two inertial frames used will be different.

[If, on the other hand, AO1 and AO2 do that at the
same coordinate time of the inertial rest frame of
IO1 and IO2, then they will use the same inertial
frame for the measurements, and they both obtain
the same value greater than L.]

> [...] NOTE: My use of the phrase "Proper Separation" in the title of
> this submission [...]

IS INCORRECT.

This does not solve your problem -- you make the same mistake for these
rulers that you made for AO1 and AO2: since those rulers are each
accelerating at A, the same as AO1, the rulers are moving away from AO1,
and from each other (they are all ahead of AO1). This is NOT Born rigid
motion, and the proper distances between those rulers are NOT constant.
Similar remarks apply to AO2, except the distances between the rulers
get smaller as the rulers are behind AO2 (the rulers must overlap or
crush).

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 18:12:07 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/6/23 11:25 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > Two perpetually inertial observers (IO1 and IO2), perpetually
> > mutually stationary with one another, are initially co-located with
> > two separated observers (AO1 and AO2), with separation "L". AO1 and
> > AO2 are about to begin a constant (according to them) acceleration
> > "A" (with the separation in the direction of their acceleration).
> > AO1 and AO2 KNOW that their acceleration is "A", because they each
> > are carrying an accelerometer that confirms it. IO1 and IO2 will
> > conclude that AO1 and AO2 maintain the separation "L" during the
> > accelerations.
> Yes to all that. Of course IO1 and IO2 need assistants at rest in their

And we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!