I don't think I gave or read the equation that determines the observable
acceleration of a relativistic object as a function of the observer's time
To.

I give it here.

a is the proper constant acceleration of the object. Let a=10m/s² as in
the traveler problem of Tau Ceti.

a(o) is the acceleration measured in the observing frame (most often the
terrestrial frame).

c is the observable speed of light.

To is the time that passes in the observing frame (terrestrial).

I specify that it is not about any assumption. This is the real equation
as it should be learned by students, and used on exam day.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rZtYDiCP2PISWhiey3Itct2hsR8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:53:15 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> I don't think...

That part is correct.

> <http://news2.nemoweb.net\jntp?rZtYDiCP2PISWhiey3Itct2hsR8@jntp\Data.Media:1>

<sigh>. The link STILL doesn't work.

Le 13/04/2022 à 03:16, rotchm a écrit :

It's pretty, isn't it?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vkmWmdck8YC8Gt0QM-pnIUMeRLg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkmWmdck8YC8Gt0QM-pnIUMeRLg@jntp>

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> I don't think I gave or read the equation that determines the observable
> acceleration of a relativistic object as a function of the observer's
> time To.

amazing, the corrupt western massmedia, calls an alleged opposition's
leader "friend of putin", in capitalist nazi "democracy". The 11
opposition parties made "illegal" by the nazi zelenske, also "friend of
putin". The corrupt western medias starts with "friend of putin" before
saying what those people are. Disgusting sons of the bitches. The
opposition of Makron in france, they also "friends of putin".

this is what happens when you don't clean the shit out, accumulates. No
communist parties, no socialist parties, no unions which are not rich
bastards, no worker parties etc. The rich bonus fascists organize to kill
you out from the face of the earth.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> I don't think I gave or read the equation that determines the observable
> acceleration of a relativistic object as a function of the observer's
> time To.
>
> I give it here.
>
> a is the proper constant acceleration of the object. Let a=10m/s² as in
> the traveler problem of Tau Ceti.
>
> a(o) is the acceleration measured in the observing frame (most often the
> terrestrial frame).
>
> c is the observable speed of light.
>
> To is the time that passes in the observing frame (terrestrial).
>
> I specify that it is not about any assumption. This is the real equation
> as it should be learned by students, and used on exam day.

This is NOT how teaching physics works, hopefully. Students are invited
to *think* not to *learn by rote*.

> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rZtYDiCP2PISWhiey3Itct2hsR8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

This is, again, something you pulled out of your ass, without any
derivation.

By the way, it is also wrong. This is not what you end up with when
deriving eq (15) from https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

Le 13/04/2022 à 12:42, Python a écrit :

>> I don't think I gave or read the equation that determines the observable
>> acceleration of a relativistic object as a function of the observer's
>> time To.
>>
>> I give it here.
>>
>> a is the proper constant acceleration of the object. Let a=10m/s² as in
>> the traveler problem of Tau Ceti.
>>
>> a(o) is the acceleration measured in the observing frame (most often the
>> terrestrial frame).
>>
>> c is the observable speed of light.
>>
>> To is the time that passes in the observing frame (terrestrial).
>>
>> I specify that it is not about any assumption. This is the real equation
>> as it should be learned by students, and used on exam day.
>
> This is NOT how teaching physics works, hopefully. Students are invited
> to *think* not to *learn by rote*.
>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rZtYDiCP2PISWhiey3Itct2hsR8@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> This is, again, something you pulled out of your ass, without any
> derivation.
>
> By the way, it is also wrong. This is not what you end up with when
> deriving eq (15) from https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

-------

English translation at the end of the text.

-------

Je ne vois pas le rapport avec l'équation (15).

J'ai écrit moi-même une vingtaine d'équation portant sur les
référentiels relativistes accélérés,
et l'équation (15) en fait d'ailleurs partie.

Je l'écris comme ça :
Vo=a.Tr/sqrt[(1+(a².Tr²/c²)]

Cette équation (15) du pdf est correcte, tu vois, je ne suis pas contre
TOUTES les équations.

Mais on ne traite pas de la même chose.

Celle que je viens de donner, traite de l'accélération observée par un
observateur terrestre par rapport
au temps qui s'écoule dans le laboratoire ou au centre de lancement d'une
fusée spatiale).

Elle est parfaitement correcte, simple d'utilisation, et inédite
apparemment.

Celle que tu donnes, la (15), donne la vitesse observable dans le
référentiel terrestre, par rapport au temps propre et à
l'accélération propre de la particule ou de la fusée dans son
référentiel.

C'est à dire le navet de la vitesse dans un référentiel par rapport aux
deux carottes qui se trouvent dans un autre qui est uniformément
accéléré. Néanmoins, c'est une équation utile et très vraie, pour
peu qu'on comprenne ce que l'on fait en la posant, et qu'on ne confonde
pas les vitesses utilisées, les temps utilisés, et l'accélération
utilisée. Je le dis toujours, la RR c'est très facile mathématiquement,
mais c'est intellectuellement bourré de petits pièges (pièges de signe,
piège de concept, piège de référentiel à utiliser).

Tiens, justement : piège de référentiel à utiliser. Tu connais la
formule x=(1/2)at²

C'est la formule de l'accélération, je suis sûr que tu l'as reconnue.

He bien comparé à la croyance des relativistes, qui vont encore
s'arracher les cheveux devant moi (mais je m'en fous), cette équation
reste valable en relativité.

Simplement, il ne faut pas tomber dans le piège du référentiel à
utiliser pour chacun des trois composants.

x, c'est laz distance parcourue dans le référentiel observant.
a, c'est l'accélération dans le référentiel de la particule (ou de la
fusée).
t, c'est Tr, c'est à dire le temps propre de la particule (ou de la
fusée).

Une carotte et deux navets.

Mais une équation néanmoins parfaite.

x=(1/2)a.Tr²

----------------------------

I don't see the connection with equation (15).

I myself wrote about twenty equations relating to accelerated relativistic
frames of reference,
and equation (15) is part of it.

I write it like this:
Vo=a.Tr/sqrt[(1+(a².Tr²/c²)]

This equation (15) from the pdf is correct, you see, I'm not against ALL
equations.

But we are not dealing with the same thing.

The one I have just given deals with the acceleration observed by a
terrestrial observer with respect to
the time that elapses in the laboratory or at the launch center of a space
rocket).

It is perfectly correct, easy to use, and apparently new.

The one you give, the (15), gives the observable speed in the terrestrial
frame of reference, compared to the proper time and the proper
acceleration of the particle or the rocket in its reference frame.

That is to say the turnip of the speed in a frame of reference compared to
the two carrots which are in another which is uniformly accelerated.
Nevertheless, it is a useful and very true equation, as long as we
understand what we are doing by posing it, and that we do not confuse the
speeds used, the times used, and the acceleration used. I always say it,
RR is very easy mathematically, but it's intellectually stuffed with
little traps (sign traps, concept trap, reference frame trap to use).

Here, precisely: repository trap to use. You know the formula x=(1/2)at²

It's the formula for acceleration, I'm sure you recognized it.

Well compared to the belief of relativists, who will still tear their hair
out in front of me (but I don't care), this equation remains valid in
relativity.

Simply, we must not fall into the trap of which repository to use for each
of the three components.

x is the distance traveled in the observing frame.
a is the acceleration in the reference frame of the particle (or of the
rocket).
t is Tr, ie the proper time of the particle (or of the rocket).

A carrot and two turnips.

But a perfect equation nonetheless.

x=(1/2)a.Tr²

----------------

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ogWlYO5f3VvDbr7uqSHiE1rw6Ck@jntp>

Le 13/04/2022 à 15:04, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
....
> Celle que tu donnes, la (15), donne la vitesse observable dans le
> référentiel terrestre, par rapport au temps propre et à l'accélération
> propre de la particule ou de la fusée dans son référentiel.

Non, tu confonds tau et t.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
....
> The one you give, the (15), gives the observable speed in the
> terrestrial frame of reference, compared to the proper time and the
> proper acceleration of the particle or the rocket in its reference frame.

No you are confusing t and tau.

Le 13/04/2022 à 15:15, Python a écrit :
> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:04, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> ...
>> Celle que tu donnes, la (15), donne la vitesse observable dans le
>> référentiel terrestre, par rapport au temps propre et à l'accélération
>> propre de la particule ou de la fusée dans son référentiel.
>
> Non, tu confonds tau et t.

Celle que tu donnes, la (15), donne la vitesse observable dans le
référentiel terrestre, par rapport au temps propre et à
l'accélération
propre de la particule ou de la fusée dans son référentiel.

Je ne vais pas le répéter cent fois.

C'est d'ailleurs l'équivalent de Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

Suffit de convertir Vr=a.Tr

C'est trivial.

Libre à ceux qui veulent y voir d'autres choses d'y voir d'autres
choses.

La démocratie, c'est la démocratie, même dans la connerie.

R.H.

Le 13/04/2022 à 15:16, Python a écrit :

> No you are confusing t and tau.

Réponse déjà faite sur fr.sci.physique

N.B : Arrêtes tes conneries.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:15, Python a écrit :
>> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:04, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
>> ...
>>> Celle que tu donnes, la (15), donne la vitesse observable dans le
>>> référentiel terrestre, par rapport au temps propre et à
>>> l'accélération propre de la particule ou de la fusée dans son
>>> référentiel.
>>
>> Non, tu confonds tau et t.
>
> Celle que tu donnes, la (15), donne la vitesse observable dans le

terme non-défini : "vitesse observable".

> référentiel terrestre, par rapport au temps propre et à l'accélération
> propre de la particule ou de la fusée dans son référentiel.
>
> Je ne vais pas le répéter cent fois.

t est le temps mesurée dans le référentiel terrestre. C'est tau
le temps mesurée dans le référentiel instantané du voyageur.

Tu peux répéter cent fois une fausseté, ça reste une fausseté.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D) wrote:
> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:16, Python a écrit :
>
>> No you are confusing t and tau.
>
> Réponse déjà faite sur fr.sci.physique
>
> N.B : Arrêtes tes conneries.

t is time measured in the Earth's frame. tau is time measured
in the traveller instantaneous frame. Period.

On 2022-04-13 10:42:30 +0000, Python said:

> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>> I don't think I gave or read the equation that determines the
>> observable acceleration of a relativistic object as a function of the
>> observer's time To.
>>
>> I give it here.
>>
>> a is the proper constant acceleration of the object. Let a=10m/s² as
>> in the traveler problem of Tau Ceti.
>>
>> a(o) is the acceleration measured in the observing frame (most often
>> the terrestrial frame).
>>
>> c is the observable speed of light.
>>
>> To is the time that passes in the observing frame (terrestrial).
>>
>> I specify that it is not about any assumption. This is the real
>> equation as it should be learned by students, and used on exam day.
>
> This is NOT how teaching physics works, hopefully. Students are invited
> to *think* not to *learn by rote*.

This is NOT how teaching other subjects works either. People who have
no experience of modern teaching often think it still involves rote
learning.
>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rZtYDiCP2PISWhiey3Itct2hsR8@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> This is, again, something you pulled out of your ass, without any
> derivation.
>
> By the way, it is also wrong. This is not what you end up with when
> deriving eq (15) from https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

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

Le 13/04/2022 à 15:28, Jean-Pierre Messager, dit Python a écrit :

> terme non-défini : "vitesse observable".

Défini correctement et des centaines de milliers de fois sur usenet.

Faut arrêter les conneries.

>
>> référentiel terrestre, par rapport au temps propre et à l'accélération
>> propre de la particule ou de la fusée dans son référentiel.
>>
>> Je ne vais pas le répéter cent fois.
>
> t est le temps mesurée dans le référentiel terrestre. C'est tau
> le temps mesurée dans le référentiel instantané du voyageur.

Alors l'équation (15) est fausse si c'est ça que ça veut dire.

Chez moi, j'écris Vo=a.Tr/sqrt(1+a²Tr²/c²) et pas
Vo=a.To/sqrt(1+a²To²/c²)

La vitesse utilisée à gauche est la vitesse observable dans le
référentiel du laboratoire
(ou du pas de tir de la fusée).

Le temps utilisé à droite est Tr (ou tau si tu veux) pas To (ou t).

C'est VOUS qui mélangez tout.

Tout cela vient de cet espace-temps abstrait de Minkowski où plus
personne ne comprend rien à ce qu'il fait, et où l'on utilise une
géométrie abstraite qui marche pas mal en certain cas, mais qui fait
rire
en d'autres.

R.H.

Le 13/04/2022 à 15:30, Python a écrit :
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D) wrote:
>> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:16, Python a écrit :
>>
>>> No you are confusing t and tau.
>>
>> Réponse déjà faite sur fr.sci.physique
>>
>> N.B : Arrêtes tes conneries.
>
> t is time measured in the Earth's frame. tau is time measured
> in the traveller instantaneous frame. Period.

No.

See my answer in fr.sci.physique

tau and t are mixed in this equation. The correct equation is tau,
normally.
a is in R' (rocket), and so is tau.
Multiplying an acceleration a in the reference frame of the rocket by the
time in the laboratory to obtain a speed in who knows what is not serious.

(15) is really Vo=a.Tr/sqrt(1+a².Tr²/c²) or,
Vo=a.tau/sqrt(1+a².tau²/c²) if you want use tau.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:28, Jean-Pierre Messager, dit Python a écrit :
>
>> terme non-défini : "vitesse observable".
>
> Défini correctement et des centaines de milliers de fois sur usenet.
>
> Faut arrêter les conneries.
>>
>>> référentiel terrestre, par rapport au temps propre et à
>>> l'accélération propre de la particule ou de la fusée dans son
>>> référentiel.
>>>
>>> Je ne vais pas le répéter cent fois.
>>
>> t est le temps mesurée dans le référentiel terrestre. C'est tau
>> le temps mesurée dans le référentiel instantané du voyageur.
>
> Alors l'équation (15) est fausse si c'est ça que ça veut dire.

You didn't even try to read Paul's article, did you?

Pointing out to you this paper is definitely throwing pearls
to swines...

> Chez moi, [snip, irrelevant]

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:30, Python a écrit :
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D) wrote:
>>> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:16, Python a écrit :
>>>
>>>> No you are confusing t and tau.
>>>
>>> Réponse déjà faite sur fr.sci.physique
>>>
>>> N.B : Arrêtes tes conneries.
>>
>> t is time measured in the Earth's frame. tau is time measured
>> in the traveller instantaneous frame. Period.
>
> No.
>
> See my answer in fr.sci.physique
>
> tau and t are mixed in this equation. The correct equation is tau,
> normally.
> a is in R' (rocket), and so is tau.
> Multiplying an acceleration a in the reference frame of the rocket by
> the time in the laboratory to obtain a speed in who knows what is not
> serious.
>
> (15) is really Vo=a.Tr/sqrt(1+a².Tr²/c²) or, Vo=a.tau/sqrt(1+a².tau²/c²)
> if you want use tau.

No it's not. If you disagree you have to point out a flaw in the
derivation (there is none :-) )

Le 13/04/2022 à 15:55, Python a écrit :
> No it's not. If you disagree you have to point out a flaw in the
> derivation (there is none :-) )

There must be a flaw somewhere. I have already explained many faults in
RR. I'm tired of licking your shoes to be insulted in return.

I repeat: if it is t that he uses (and not tau, proper time, Tr) the
equation is false.

But I think it was you who misunderstood something.

I don't have time to waste on this, but if someone understands that their
equation doesn't work anyway, I want to explain why: there must be a
conceptual error (as I often say) in the diversion and we took a bladder
for a lantern.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:55, Python a écrit :
>> No it's not. If you disagree you have to point out a flaw in the
>> derivation (there is none :-) )
>
> There must be a flaw somewhere. I have already explained many faults in
> RR. I'm tired of licking your shoes to be insulted in return.
>
> I repeat: if it is t that he uses (and not tau, proper time, Tr) the
> equation is false.
>
> But I think it was you who misunderstood something.
>
> I don't have time to waste on this, but if someone understands that
> their equation doesn't work anyway, I want to explain why: there must be
> a conceptual error (as I often say) in the diversion and we took a
> bladder for a lantern.

100% usual cranks excuses ("I'm being insulted!", "I have no time!") and
empty evasive rhetoric (i.e. claims with no arguments).

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:30, Python a écrit :
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D) wrote:
>>> Le 13/04/2022 à 15:16, Python a écrit :
>>>
>>>> No you are confusing t and tau.
>>>
>>> Réponse déjà faite sur fr.sci.physique
>>>
>>> N.B : Arrêtes tes conneries.
>>
>> t is time measured in the Earth's frame. tau is time measured
>> in the traveller instantaneous frame. Period.
>
> No.
>
> See my answer in fr.sci.physique
>
> tau and t are mixed in this equation. The correct equation is tau,
> normally.
> a is in R' (rocket), and so is tau.
> Multiplying an acceleration a in the reference frame of the rocket by
> the time in the laboratory to obtain a speed in who knows what is not
> serious.
>
> (15) is really Vo=a.Tr/sqrt(1+a².Tr²/c²) or, Vo=a.tau/sqrt(1+a².tau²/c²)
> if you want use tau.

By the way you can derive v as a function of tau from eq 20 and eq 15,
you'll end up with:

v = c*tanh(tau*a/c)

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2022-04-13 10:42:30 +0000, Python said:
>
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>> I don't think I gave or read the equation that determines the
>>> observable acceleration of a relativistic object as a function of the
>>> observer's time To.
>>>
>>> I give it here.
>>>
>>> a is the proper constant acceleration of the object. Let a=10m/s² as
>>> in the traveler problem of Tau Ceti.
>>>
>>> a(o) is the acceleration measured in the observing frame (most often
>>> the terrestrial frame).
>>>
>>> c is the observable speed of light.
>>>
>>> To is the time that passes in the observing frame (terrestrial).
>>>
>>> I specify that it is not about any assumption. This is the real
>>> equation as it should be learned by students, and used on exam day.
>>
>> This is NOT how teaching physics works, hopefully. Students are invited
>> to *think* not to *learn by rote*.
>
> This is NOT how teaching other subjects works either. People who have
> no experience of modern teaching often think it still involves rote
> learning.

This is not something an egomaniac is willing to accept. If the egomaniac
does not understand it, then it is simply not understandable by anyone.
Then those who claim to understand it have either just memorized it or are
lying, so the egomaniac believes.

>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rZtYDiCP2PISWhiey3Itct2hsR8@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>
>> This is, again, something you pulled out of your ass, without any
>> derivation.
>>
>> By the way, it is also wrong. This is not what you end up with when
>> deriving eq (15) from https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>
>

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

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 12:42:19 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> This is NOT how teaching physics works, hopefully. Students are invited
> to *think* not to *learn by rote*.

Buhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 15:30:15 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D) wrote:
> > Le 13/04/2022 à 15:16, Python a écrit :
> >
> >> No you are confusing t and tau.
> >
> > Réponse déjà faite sur fr.sci.physique
> >
> > N.B : Arrêtes tes conneries.
> t is time measured in the Earth's frame. tau is time measured
> in the traveller instantaneous frame. Period.

In the meantime in the real world, of course,
forbidden by your idiot gurus TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

Richard "Hachel" Lengran (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 13/04/2022 à 12:42, Python a écrit :
....
>> By the way, it is also wrong. This is not what you end up with when
>> deriving eq (15) from https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
....
> The one you give, the (15), gives the observable speed in the
> terrestrial frame of reference, compared to the proper time and the
> proper acceleration of the particle or the rocket in its reference frame.

"observable speed" is an undefined term or yours.

Anyway I did notice that you confuse t and tau all the times, but I've
just noticed that you missed also how to obtain acceleration in Earth's
frame from an equation providing speed as function of the time
coordinate in Earth's frame of reference.

Start from eq 15, differentiate on t dv(t)/dt = a(t), you'll find
the correct formula, which differs a lot from yours.

There is no limit to your confusions.

And, by the way, "repository" means "dépôt", definitely NOT "frame of
reference", most of you post makes even less sense than usual.

You don't care right? You're not even convinced of your sh*t, Richard,
you just want to annoy people. Why?

Le 14/04/2022 à 01:43, Python a écrit :

> "observable speed" is an undefined term or yours.

I have explained like a parrot many times that there are, in relativity,
three speeds to take into account.

The measurable or observable speeds that scientists denote v, and that I
denote Vo, to show, precisely, that this is what is observed,
and not what is real.

Vr : real speed.

The apparent velocities Vapp (which is the same as what scientists call
v_app.

The effort required to understand me is not superhuman.

R.H.