Exam subject relativistic aggregation (Toulouse 2025) :

---
"An exploratory rocket made with the new atomic process KB14 is sent to
Tau Ceti.
For the well-being of the rocket personnel, it will have a proper
acceleration of g=10m/s/s.
Four years pass on earth. That is 1461 days.
Then wants to know 1. Where is the rocket now?
2. What is its instantaneous speed in the terrestrial frame of reference?
3. What time does this rocket mark in its proper time?"
---

Student response:
1. The rocket is obviously somewhere between the earth and Tau-Ceti, and
it must already be far away.
2. I think it goes quite fast, because it is a rocket built on the KB14
atomic model, and it is probably a reliable model.
3. The rocket marks a certain time, but maybe not the same as the earth's
clock because time is relative.

The answers not containing enormities, the student is received with his
examination with the note of 14/20.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:
> Exam subject relativistic aggregation (Toulouse 2025) : --- "An exploratory rocket made with the new atomic process KB14 is sent to Tau Ceti.

George Orwell,
“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ktCptDojUOFY60mhvyIDVjxqOQlAUW_U/view

*IT_S_NEVER_BEEN_ABOUT_HEALTH___IT_S_ABOUT_CONTROL*

Dr. Fauci, “There will be a surprise outbreak... the next administration (Trump) will be faced with challenges.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNXGAxGJgQI&t=3m20s

World Health Organisation Report – Progress Indicators by September 2020 (PAGE 39):
“The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system wide training and simulation exercises, including one covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.”
https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201 (watch the videos)
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/

European Commission Roadmap - Vaccination Passport for EU Citizens (2019)
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/vaccination/docs/2019-2022_roadmap_en.pdf

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security: The SPARS Pandemic 2025 - 2028
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2017/spars-pandemic-scenario.pdf

Bill Gates, “We’re taking things that are genetically modified organisms and we’re injecting them in little kids arms, we just shoot them right into the vein.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec0XZDgQ7XU&t=2m18s

Bill Gates, ”The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or
15 percent."
https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero/transcript

Bill Gates, “Eventually what we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person, who’s a vaccinated person... so eventually there will be this digital immunity proof that will help facilitate the global reopening up.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe8fIjxicoo&t=34m14s

Bill Gates, "We'll have to prepare for the next one... that, I'd say, will get attention this time.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWQ2DsHWrQE&t=6m44s

Bill Gates - Pandemic 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipaP5zTVKKU&t=3m35s

Big Tech Censors Dissent Over Coronavirus Lockdowns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPrbGU0Wyh4

Kary Mullis - PCR Test Inventor
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RsnH3LAUoXX5

World Doctors Alliance
https://worlddoctorsalliance.com

America's Frontline Doctors
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org

The Great Barrington Declaration
https://gbdeclaration.org

Evidence Not Fear
https://evidencenotfear.com

The COVID Coup
https://americanmind.org/essays/the-covid-coup/

*THE_SCIENCE*

Dr. Peter Doshi: Vaccine Mandates
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MSwu5xWV1bEK

Dr. Scott Youngblood: Efficacy of COVID Vaccines
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KwrjSPC8Jwi7

Dr. Robert Malone, Inventor of mRNA Vaccine warns about the risks of the experimental vaccines
https://www.bitchute.com/video/erw4yOfjCzT4

Dr. Bret Weinstein: ‘Perverse Incentives’ in the Vaccine Rollout and the Censorship of Science
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4nwmiwVmZzHi

Dr. Ryan Cole: Covid-19 Vaccine & ADE
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vYwpIn1umnJj

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko: Covid-19 Vaccine
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XkXhI5vfGAEL

Prof. Luc Montagnier, “It is the vaccination that is creating the variants”
https://www.bitchute.com/video/aRO7S01mUMrE

Dr. Peter McCullough: COVID Vaccine Agenda & The Rush To Suppress Alternative Treatments
https://www.bitchute.com/video/h9zVZUitKxyG

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche: Mass Vaccination in a Pandemic - Benefits versus Risks (McMillan Research)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Th6pLHZGyicP

Dr. Richard Fleming: Covid-19 Vaccine
https://www.bitchute.com/video/aA95SYZwAjVs

Dr. Mike Yeadon, Former CSO & VP Allergy Respiratory Research Pfizer Global
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qs9X8Blr4Ucv

Dr. Roger Hodkinson: How governments responded to COVID
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ilWq4miJA5U

Dr. Charles Hoffe: Children and COVID Vaccines
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9v6DoEOF8a8w

Dr. Scott Jensen, “You're Being Played”
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IiWBP1amDZsB

Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi: Perspectives on the Pandemic
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6zhoYPgAe8KR

Prof. Carl Heneghan: Can we trust Covid-19 death numbers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxLDJJb1_KI

Prof. Michael Levitt: Does the data support the lockdown policy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5BGHuK1zo

Dr. Rochagné Kilian: Covid-19 Vaccines and D-Dimer Levels
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PIbv7YyCVq6a

Children Have 0.00% Chance of Dying from COVID but are Harmed for Life by Social Distancing
https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/children-have-0-00-chance-of-dying-from-covid-but-are-harmed-for-life-by-social-distancing-which-has-its-roots-in-cia-torture-techniques/

Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?
“The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children. A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit
analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from
COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Natural Immunity to Vaccine-Induced Immunity: Reinfections Versus Breakthrough Infections
“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the
BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A Stratified National Database Analysis
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

FDA Fact Sheet For Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine):
“Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age than among females
and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age.”
https://www.fda.gov/media/153713/download

COMIRNATY (COVID-19 mRNA VACCINE) RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN:
“The safety profile of the vaccine is not known in pregnant or breastfeeding women due to their initial exclusion from the pivotal clinical study. The vaccine has not been studied in individuals with overt
immunocompromised conditions. The vaccine has been studied in individuals with stable chronic diseases (e.g.hypertension, obesity), however it has not been studied in frail individuals with severe co-morbidities that may
compromise immune function due to the condition or treatment of the condition. There is limited information on the safety of the vaccine in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders. There are no data on
interaction of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine with other vaccines at this time. At this time, 2-month post dose 2 safety data are available for approximately half of the patients who have received COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in
Study C4591001. The study is ongoing. The potential risk of VAED/VAERD could have a public health impact if large populations of individuals are affected.”
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/rmp-summary/comirnaty-epar-risk-management-plan_en.pdf

COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA):
“COMIRNATY has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility.”
https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download

SARS–CoV–2 Spike Protein Impairs DNA Damage Repair:
“Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines.”
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm

Worse than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23/51

New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro and Nanocontamination
“We verified the presence of saline and Aluminum salts, but further presence of micro, sub-micro and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases, whose
presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product.”
https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/new-quality-control-investigations-on-vaccines-micro--and-nanocontamination.html

Cause of Death After COVID-19 Vaccination: Undeclared Components of the COVID-19 Vaccines
https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/

Den 16.01.2022 22:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Exam subject relativistic aggregation (Toulouse 2025) :
>
> ---
> "An exploratory rocket made with the new atomic process KB14 is sent to
> Tau Ceti.
> For the well-being of the rocket personnel, it will have a proper
> acceleration of g=10m/s/s.
> Four years pass on earth. That is 1461 days.
> Then wants to know 1. Where is the rocket now?

x = (c²/a)(√(1+(at/c)²)−1) = 3.16 ly from Earth

> 2. What is its instantaneous speed in the terrestrial frame of reference?

v = at/√(1+(at/c)²) = 0.9729c

> 3. What time does this rocket mark in its proper time?"

τ = (c/a)⋅arsinh(at/c) = 2.04 y

Where is the humour?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 11:18:04 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 16.01.2022 22:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
> > Exam subject relativistic aggregation (Toulouse 2025) :
> >
> > ---
> > "An exploratory rocket made with the new atomic process KB14 is sent to
> > Tau Ceti.
> > For the well-being of the rocket personnel, it will have a proper
> > acceleration of g=10m/s/s.
> > Four years pass on earth. That is 1461 days.
> > Then wants to know 1. Where is the rocket now?
> x = (c²/a)(√(1+(at/c)²)−1) = 3.16 ly from Earth

Have you never heard of the relativity of distances,
poor halfbrain? And of the relativity of "now"?

> Where is the humour?

In your answer. It's very, very funny.

Le 17/01/2022 à 11:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>
> Den 16.01.2022 22:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Exam subject relativistic aggregation (Toulouse 2025) :
>>
>> ---
>> "An exploratory rocket made with the new atomic process KB14 is sent to
>> Tau Ceti.
>> For the well-being of the rocket personnel, it will have a proper
>> acceleration of g=10m/s/s.
>> Four years pass on earth. That is 1461 days.
>> Then wants to know 1. Where is the rocket now?
>
> x = (c²/a)(√(1+(at/c)²)−1) = 3.16 ly from Earth
>
>> 2. What is its instantaneous speed in the terrestrial frame of reference?
>
> v = at/√(1+(at/c)²) = 0.9729c
>
>> 3. What time does this rocket mark in its proper time?"
>
> τ = (c/a)⋅arsinh(at/c) = 2.04 y
>
> Where is the humour?

Here is humour:

Student response:
1. The rocket is obviously somewhere between the earth and Tau-Ceti, and
it must already be far away.
2. I think it goes quite fast, because it is a rocket built on the KB14
atomic model, and it is probably a reliable model.
3. The rocket marks a certain time, but maybe not the same as the earth's
clock because time is relative.

R.H.

Le 17/01/2022 à 11:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 11:18:04 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 16.01.2022 22:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> > Exam subject relativistic aggregation (Toulouse 2025) :
>> >
>> > ---
>> > "An exploratory rocket made with the new atomic process KB14 is sent to
>> > Tau Ceti.
>> > For the well-being of the rocket personnel, it will have a proper
>> > acceleration of g=10m/s/s.
>> > Four years pass on earth. That is 1461 days.
>> > Then wants to know 1. Where is the rocket now?
>> x = (c²/a)(√(1+(at/c)²)−1) = 3.16 ly from Earth
>
> Have you never heard of the relativity of distances,
> poor halfbrain? And of the relativity of "now"?

Be careful, do not insult a correspondent who responds with courtesy to
the questions asked.

I will study the answers he gives, I will answer later, and I may not
agree with everything he says. But I would like the discussion to be
courteous, circumstantial, and positive.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/01/2022 à 11:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 11:18:04 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 16.01.2022 22:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>> Exam subject relativistic aggregation (Toulouse 2025) :
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> "An exploratory rocket made with the new atomic process KB14 is sent to
>>>> Tau Ceti.
>>>> For the well-being of the rocket personnel, it will have a proper
>>>> acceleration of g=10m/s/s.
>>>> Four years pass on earth. That is 1461 days.
>>>> Then wants to know 1. Where is the rocket now?
>>> x = (c²/a)(√(1+(at/c)²)−1) = 3.16 ly from Earth
>>
>> Have you never heard of the relativity of distances,
>> poor halfbrain? And of the relativity of "now"?
>
> Be careful, do not insult a correspondent who responds with courtesy to
> the questions asked.
>
> I will study the answers he gives, I will answer later, and I may not
> agree with everything he says. But I would like the discussion to be
> courteous, circumstantial, and positive.

I think you’ve burned that bridge quite a while ago.

>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> I will study the answers he gives, I will answer later, and I may not
>> agree with everything he says. But I would like the discussion to be
>> courteous, circumstantial, and positive.
>
> I think you’ve burned that bridge quite a while ago.

excellent point, you burned alot of bridges along the line.

Is This Evidence That All The Jabs In The UK Are Being Pulled?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Mk8yEdDkk4ua/

On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 17:26:02 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 17/01/2022 à 11:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >> On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 11:18:04 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>> Den 16.01.2022 22:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
> >>>> Exam subject relativistic aggregation (Toulouse 2025) :
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> "An exploratory rocket made with the new atomic process KB14 is sent to
> >>>> Tau Ceti.
> >>>> For the well-being of the rocket personnel, it will have a proper
> >>>> acceleration of g=10m/s/s.
> >>>> Four years pass on earth. That is 1461 days.
> >>>> Then wants to know 1. Where is the rocket now?
> >>> x = (c²/a)(√(1+(at/c)²)−1) = 3.16 ly from Earth
> >>
> >> Have you never heard of the relativity of distances,
> >> poor halfbrain? And of the relativity of "now"?
> >
> > Be careful, do not insult a correspondent who responds with courtesy to
> > the questions asked.
> >
> > I will study the answers he gives, I will answer later, and I may not
> > agree with everything he says. But I would like the discussion to be
> > courteous, circumstantial, and positive.
> I think you’ve burned that bridge quite a while ago.

There was never any bridge to burn, poor stinker.
A discussion with those like you is impossible and
never will be.

Den 17.01.2022 16:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 17/01/2022 à 11:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>> Where is the humour?
>
> Here is humour:
>
> Student response:
> 1. The rocket is obviously somewhere between the earth and Tau-Ceti, and
> it must already be far away.
> 2. I think it goes quite fast, because it is a rocket built on the KB14
> atomic model, and it is probably a reliable model.
> 3. The rocket marks a certain time, but maybe not the same as the
> earth's clock because time is relative.

Since "the rocket is somewhere at some speed"
hardly can be funny, it must be "time is relative"
you find funny.

I will give you an opportunity to prove
that time isn't relative.

Here we go:

It is an empirical fact that the Doppler shift of EM-signals is:
D = √((c−v)/(c+v)) (c is the speed of light)
because just about everything we know about stars is learned
through analysis of Doppler shifted stellar spectra.
Thousands of Doppler measurements are done in telescopes
on Earth and in space every day, and if the equation above
was wrong, things wouldn't add up. But they do.

An inevitable consequence of this equation is that
twin A will age more than twin B in the following
twin scenario:

All you have to do to prove that this is imposible
is to prove that my calculations below are wrong.

No SR equations are used, only common sense.
Don't say the math is beyond you, it is only elementary arithmetic;
addition and multiplication, and I am sure you can handle that.

This is a very realistic version of a twin scenario,
one which could be performed in the real word.

Two persons A and B have spaceships with
the following equipment:
- Both have an atomic clock with a digital display
showing the time in seconds with four decimal digits.
- A has a video camera recording the display and
a radio sender sending the video picture.
- B has a radio receiver receiving the video signal
and displaying the picture of A's clock on a monitor.
- B has a rocket engine capable of accelerating
the ship at a = 100 m/s² (≈ 10g)

B will always see a picture of A's clock on her monitor.

The two persons in their ships are somewhere in
interplanetary space so far from the nearest planet
that the curvature of spacetime can be ignored.
They are moving at a speed v = 3 km/second relative
to each other, and as they closely pass each other
they both set their clocks to zero.

A remains inertial all the time. (not running a rocket)

When B's clock shows 10,000,000.0000 seconds she fires
her rocket and accelerates at 100 m/s² towards A.
60 seconds later, when B's clock shows 10,000,060 seconds,
B's speed relative to A will be 3 km/s towards B.
(The speed is changing by 100m/s² ⋅ 60s = 6 km/s,
from 3 km/s away from B to 3 km/s towards B.)

At some time A and B will again closely pass each other
with relative speed 3 km/s. They compare their clocks.
B's clock will obviously show: time out + time of acceleration
+ time back = 10000000s+60s+10000000s = 20000060.0000 seconds
=====================

B will the whole time see a picture of A's clock on her monitor,
and when they pass each other, A's clock will obviously show
the same as the clock on B's monitor.

What will the picture of A's clock on B's monitor show?

B will receive the video signal from A Doppler shifted by D
where:
When A and B are receding from each other, D = 0.99999000005
When A and B are approaching each other, D = 1.00001000005
During the short acceleration we can assume D = 1.

When B's clock shows 10,000,000 seconds and she starts her
rocket the clock on the monitor will show:
10000000s⋅0.99999000005 = 9999900.0005 seconds

During the 60 seconds acceleration, the clock on the monitor
will advance 60s⋅1 = 60 seconds.

During the return trip which lasts 10,000,000 seconds, the clock
on the monitor will advance
10000000s⋅1.00001000005 = 10000100.0005 seconds

So when they pass each other A's clock must show
the same as the clock on B's monitor:
9999900.0005s+60s+10000100.0005s = 20000060.0010 seconds
====================

Which means that A ages 1 ms more than B during the journey.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 20:32:23 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 17.01.2022 16:41, skrev Richard Hachel:
> > Le 17/01/2022 à 11:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> >>
> >> Where is the humour?
> >
> > Here is humour:
> >
> > Student response:
> > 1. The rocket is obviously somewhere between the earth and Tau-Ceti, and
> > it must already be far away.
> > 2. I think it goes quite fast, because it is a rocket built on the KB14
> > atomic model, and it is probably a reliable model.
> > 3. The rocket marks a certain time, but maybe not the same as the
> > earth's clock because time is relative.
> Since "the rocket is somewhere at some speed"
> hardly can be funny, it must be "time is relative"
> you find funny.
>
> I will give you an opportunity to prove
> that time isn't relative.
>
> Here we go:
>
> It is an empirical fact that the Doppler shift of EM-signals is:
> D = √((c−v)/(c+v)) (c is the speed of light)
> because just about everything we know about stars is learned
> through analysis of Doppler shifted stellar spectra.
> Thousands of Doppler measurements are done in telescopes
> on Earth and in space every day, and if the equation above
> was wrong, things wouldn't add up. But they do.
>
> An inevitable consequence of this equation is that
> twin A will age more than twin B in the following
> twin scenario:

In the scenarios of an insane halfbrain anything can
happen; in the meantime in the real world, however,
forbidden by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Le 17/01/2022 à 20:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> in the meantime in the real world, however,
> forbidden by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

You mean time is not relative? And that always t'=t?

R.H.

On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 22:33:28 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 17/01/2022 à 20:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
> > in the meantime in the real world, however,
> > forbidden by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring
> > t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> You mean time is not relative? And that always t'=t?

Not always. Time is what clocks indicate. In physics
gedanken (i.e. delusional ) clocks indicate what
physicists want them to; in the real world real clocks
indicate what WE want them to, and that's t'=t. So, times
(because there are some of them: GPS, TAI, UTC, zone
times) of the real world are absolute, while time of
physics is relative.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/01/2022 à 20:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
>> in the meantime in the real world, however,
>> forbidden by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring
>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
>
> You mean time is not relative? And that always t'=t?
>
> R.H.
>
>
>
>

Please pay close attention to mwozniak. The interaction will be good for
you.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 17/01/2022 à 20:32, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> This is a very realistic version of a twin scenario,
> one which could be performed in the real word.

In the traveler problem of Tau Ceti, the traveler starts in uniformly
accelerated motion.
But be careful, it's her rocket that accelerates, and she's the one who
feels the effects. The real acceleration is therefore at the level of the
rocket. The earth will only notice an "apparent" acceleration.
First problem: in the reference frame of the rocket, the acceleration is
constant. It is systematically g=10m/s².
In the reference frame, the acceleration of the rocket depends on its
instantaneous speed.
The instantaneous acceleration observable at a specific point is given by
the equation g'=g.[sqrt(1-v²/c²)]^3

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/01/2022 à 20:32, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>> This is a very realistic version of a twin scenario,
>> one which could be performed in the real word.
>
> In the traveler problem of Tau Ceti, the traveler starts in uniformly
> accelerated motion.
> But be careful, it's her rocket that accelerates, and she's the one who
> feels the effects. The real acceleration is therefore at the level of the
> rocket.

No, it’s not any more “real” than the acceleration as measured from the
earth. They are just two different kinds of acceleration and they are
labeled differently.

> The earth will only notice an "apparent" acceleration.
> First problem: in the reference frame of the rocket, the acceleration is
> constant. It is systematically g=10m/s².
> In the reference frame, the acceleration of the rocket depends on its
> instantaneous speed.
> The instantaneous acceleration observable at a specific point is given by
> the equation g'=g.[sqrt(1-v²/c²)]^3
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 18/01/2022 à 20:12, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> No, it’s not any more “real” than the acceleration as measured from the
> earth. They are just two different kinds of acceleration and they are
> labeled differently.

Strictly speaking, there is no credible acceleration in the terrestrial
frame of reference. In the reference frame of the rocket, the acceleration
is stable and given. g=10m/s².
In the terrestrial frame, the acceleration of the rocket changes with the
direction of the wind.

The instantaneous acceleration "observable" at a specific point is given
by the equation g'=g.[sqrt(1-v²/c²)]^3
R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/01/2022 à 20:12, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> No, it’s not any more “real” than the acceleration as measured from the
>> earth. They are just two different kinds of acceleration and they are
>> labeled differently.
>
> Strictly speaking, there is no credible acceleration in the terrestrial
> frame of reference.

I completely disagree. There is nothing about the acceleration in that
frame of reference that is not real or illusory or of lesser status.

> In the reference frame of the rocket, the acceleration
> is stable and given. g=10m/s².

Sure. But being constant acceleration doesn’t make it “better” or “more
real”.

Let’s back up a minute.
There are two speed indicators in an airplane: an air speed indicator
(which measures the speed of the plane relative to the air) and a ground
speed indicator (which measures the speed of the plane relative to the
ground). Note that BOTH of these gauges are on the plane. Which of these do
you think is “more real” and why?

> In the terrestrial frame, the acceleration of the rocket changes with the
> direction of the wind.
>
> The instantaneous acceleration "observable" at a specific point is given
> by the equation g'=g.[sqrt(1-v²/c²)]^3
>
> R.H.
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 18 January 2022 at 22:00:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sure. But being constant acceleration doesn’t make it “better”

How do you know, poor halfbrain? Did you measure its
"goodness"?

Den 18.01.2022 20:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 17/01/2022 à 20:32, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>> This is a very realistic version of a twin scenario,
>> one which could be performed in the real word.
>
> <snip>
Why did you snip the whole scenario?

Why not try to read it, can't you?
Don't you understand it?

It is an empirical fact that the Doppler shift of EM-signals is:
D = √((c−v)/(c+v)) (c is the speed of light)
because just about everything we know about stars is learned
through analysis of Doppler shifted stellar spectra.
Thousands of Doppler measurements are done in telescopes
on Earth and in space every day, and if the equation above
was wrong, things wouldn't add up. But they do.

An inevitable consequence of this equation is that
twin A will age more than twin B in the following
twin scenario:

All you have to do to prove that this is imposible
is to prove that my calculations below are wrong.

No SR equations are used, only common sense.
Don't say the math is beyond you, it is only elementary arithmetic;
addition and multiplication, and I am sure you can handle that.

This is a very realistic version of a twin scenario,
one which could be performed in the real word.

Two persons A and B have spaceships with
the following equipment:
- Both have an atomic clock with a digital display
showing the time in seconds with four decimal digits.
- A has a video camera recording the display and
a radio sender sending the video picture.
- B has a radio receiver receiving the video signal
and displaying the picture of A's clock on a monitor.
- B has a rocket engine capable of accelerating
the ship at a = 100 m/s² (≈ 10g)

B will always see a picture of A's clock on her monitor.

The two persons in their ships are somewhere in
interplanetary space so far from the nearest planet
that the curvature of spacetime can be ignored.
They are moving at a speed v = 3 km/second relative
to each other, and as they closely pass each other
they both set their clocks to zero.

A remains inertial all the time. (not running a rocket)

When B's clock shows 10,000,000.0000 seconds she fires
her rocket and accelerates at 100 m/s² towards A.
60 seconds later, when B's clock shows 10,000,060 seconds,
B's speed relative to A will be 3 km/s towards B.
(The speed is changing by 100m/s² ⋅ 60s = 6 km/s,
from 3 km/s away from B to 3 km/s towards B.)

At some time A and B will again closely pass each other
with relative speed 3 km/s. They compare their clocks.
B's clock will obviously show: time out + time of acceleration
+ time back = 10000000s+60s+10000000s = 20000060.0000 seconds
=====================

B will the whole time see a picture of A's clock on her monitor,
and when they pass each other, A's clock will obviously show
the same as the clock on B's monitor.

What will the picture of A's clock on B's monitor show?

B will receive the video signal from A Doppler shifted by D
where:
When A and B are receding from each other, D = 0.99999000005
When A and B are approaching each other, D = 1.00001000005
During the short acceleration we can assume D = 1.

When B's clock shows 10,000,000 seconds and she starts her
rocket the clock on the monitor will show:
10000000s⋅0.99999000005 = 9999900.0005 seconds

During the 60 seconds acceleration, the clock on the monitor
will advance 60s⋅1 = 60 seconds.

During the return trip which lasts 10,000,000 seconds, the clock
on the monitor will advance
10000000s⋅1.00001000005 = 10000100.0005 seconds

So when they pass each other A's clock must show
the same as the clock on B's monitor:
9999900.0005s+60s+10000100.0005s = 20000060.0010 seconds
====================

Which means that A ages 1 ms more than B during the journey.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday, 19 January 2022 at 11:00:42 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 18.01.2022 20:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
> > Le 17/01/2022 à 20:32, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> >
> >> This is a very realistic version of a twin scenario,
> >> one which could be performed in the real word.
> >
> > <snip>
> Why did you snip the whole scenario?
>
> Why not try to read it, can't you?
> Don't you understand it?
> It is an empirical fact that the Doppler shift of EM-signals is:
> D = √((c−v)/(c+v)) (c is the speed of light)
> because just about everything we know about stars is learned
> through analysis of Doppler shifted stellar spectra.
> Thousands of Doppler measurements are done in telescopes
> on Earth and in space every day, and if the equation above
> was wrong, things wouldn't add up.

This kind of reasoning is called "arm waving".

> An inevitable consequence of this equation is that
> twin A will age more than twin B in the following
> twin scenario:

In a scenario he may. In the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

All of the analogies of SR, Simultaneity, rocket problem,  time-space, black holes, gradational waves, Apollo 11, ISS, GPS, are used to justify Lorentz's transformation of Michelson experiment that is used to justify the ether, composed of matter since the wave theory of light was the premiere question of the 1900's. All these analogies are based on deception where the real question is being misplaced by these analogies which are chicken and egg arguments when the underlying question is the ether.  Now, the ether is part of Maxwell's theory since physicists could not explain electromagnetic field theory without an ether. Back then the physicists were much better and tried to stick with the truth since its got them extremely from. Back to the analogy, all the analogies are based on rather the Einstein cooricincate system transformation (time-space) that originates from Lorentz theory. Really did Einstein do anything original? everything He did came from someone else. The question is Lorentz transformation valid but it really does not matter if you look farther into the question since if the time-space cs transformation is valid that mean it can to applied to Michelsson experiment to justify the ether and if you argue that the time-space transformation is invalid than there can be not reversal of the negative result of Michelson experiment to justify the ether yet in any case vacuum proves the ether, composed of matter, does not exist but the ether is extremely important the Maxwell's theory since within a finite volume there is an infinite number of positions which result in when energy position is depicted with a field vector (energy) results in the infinite energy which is solved with the ether particles..