g=10m/s²

x=12 ly (années-lumières)

Je vais monter dans la fusée, moi, j'ai pas peur.

Je vais arriver en combien de temps?

Merci de bien vouloir répondre, surtout si vous ne gobez pas toutes les
conneries dites par les physiciens relativistes, qui sont aussi des
hommes, c'est à dire parfois à la fois con et arrogants.

Chose que moi, je n'ai jamais été, malgré ce qu'on raconte.

C'est bizarre, la vie.

I'm going to go up in the rocket, I'm not afraid.

How soon will I arrive?

Please answer, especially if you don't buy all the bullshit said by
relativistic physicists, who are also men, ie sometimes both stupid and
arrogant.

Something that I have never been, despite what people say.

Life is weird.

R.H.

Le 17/04/2022 à 16:56, Maltek a écrit :
> On Sun, 17 Apr 22 11:53:16 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>>g=10m/s²
>>
>>x=12 ly (années-lumières)
>>
>>Je vais monter dans la fusée, moi, j'ai pas peur.
>>
>>Je vais arriver en combien de temps?
>
> Bah en 3.14 années de temps propre si tu ne fais qu'accélérer, et 5.09
> années de temps propre si tu accélères la moitié du trajet et
> décélères l'autre moitié.

> Bah in 3.14 years of proper time if you only accelerate, and 5.09
> years of clean time if you speed up half the journey and
> decelerate the other half.

Je te remercie pour cette tentative de réponse, cela prouve que tu es un
homme de science et de tempérament chercheur et ludique.

Evidemment, vous connaissez Richard Hachel, il va gentiment révéler que
cette réponse est fausse, et très loin de la réalité.

Dans ce cas de figure, je parle du problème du voyageur de Tau Ceti,
autant les relativistes répondent de façon correcte pour ce qui est du
temps propre
de l'observateur terrestre, et utilisent des équations correctes
(absolument les mêmes que les miennes),
autant ils se fourvoient pour le temps propre de la personne présente
dans la fusée.

Ils sont très en deça du temps.

Il faut compter un peu plus si on utilise la bonne équation.

Ce qui est absolument dramatique, même si ça peut faire rire certains,
c'est que les "cranks" vont donner la bonne équation pour ce cas de
figure et pas pour l'autre observateur.

C'est extra-ordinaire.

Quelqu'un peut-il me donner une autre réponse que 3.14 ans?

Thank you for this attempted answer, it proves that you are a man of
science and a researcher and playful temperament.

Obviously, you know Richard Hachel, he will kindly reveal that this answer
is false, and very far from reality.

In this case, I speak of the problem of the traveler of Tau Ceti, as much
the relativists answer in a correct way for what is proper time
of the terrestrial observer, and uses correct equations (absolutely the
same as mine),
as much as they are mistaken for the proper time of the person present in
the rocket.

They are way behind time.

It takes a little more if you use the right equation.

What is absolutely dramatic, even if it may make some people laugh, is
that the "cranks" will give the correct equation for this scenario and not
for the other observer.

It's extraordinary.

Can anyone give me an answer other than 3.14?

R.H.

On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 17:36:50 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:

> What is absolutely dramatic, even if it may make some people laugh, is
> that the "cranks" will give the correct equation for this scenario and not
> for the other observer.

Richard, poor idiot, an observer is a thinking human being.
Your moronic physics was always trying to bring it down to
some primitive formulas, and was always failing. And it will
be failing still, because trying is ridiculous.

Le 17/04/2022 à 18:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> Richard, poor idiot, an observer is a thinking human being.
> Your moronic physics was always trying to bring it down to
> some primitive formulas, and was always failing. And it will
> be failing still, because trying is ridiculous.

Thanks.

I'm just asking a very simple question.

A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
10m/s².

It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12 ly.

If he encounters no problem on the way, how long will it take to cross Tau
Ceti and his solar system?

There can only be one possible answer.

Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
months.

At what age will he arrive there?

He can't be 48, 52, and 56 all at once.

Can you answer?

Merci.

A little answer. Very little or tiny.

But an answer.

R.H.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
> 10m/s². It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12 ly.
> Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
> months. At what age will he arrive there?

His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so his proper age on
arrival will be 48.14 years.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
> 10m/s². It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12 ly.
> Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
> months. At what age will he arrive there?

His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so if his proper age at departure is 45.25
years (weirdly specific), his proper age on arrival will be 48.39 years.

Le 17/04/2022 à 20:42, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so his proper age on
> arrival will be 48.14 years.

Thank you for your reply.

This is obviously not the correct answer, but it's always good to try an
answer.

As for the 48.14 years old, I didn't really understand what it could refer
to, directly or indirectly.

Follow this discussion, it seems to me very interesting and informative.

R.H.

On 4/17/2022 12:28 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 17/04/2022 à 18:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> Richard, poor idiot, an observer is a thinking human being.
>> Your moronic physics was always trying to bring it down to
>> some primitive formulas, and was always failing. And it will
>> be failing still, because trying is ridiculous.
>
> Thanks.
> I'm just asking a very simple question.
>
> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
> 10m/s².
>
> It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12 ly.
>
Paul Anderson has some good calculators for this and similar problems.
You want the one which calculates the proper time of a constantly
accelerating traveler, as well as the speed upon arrival. Although you
didn't ask, you may also want the time observed by an Earth-bound observer.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
> 10m/s². It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12 ly.
> Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
> months. At what age will he arrive there?

His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so if his proper age at departure is 45.25
years (weirdly specific), his proper age on arrival will be 48.39 years.

> This is obviously not the correct answer.

It is the correct answer. This can be found in any introductory text.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> g=10m/s²
>
> x=12 ly (années-lumières)
>
> Je vais monter dans la fusée, moi, j'ai pas peur.
>
> Je vais arriver en combien de temps?
>
> Merci de bien vouloir répondre, surtout si vous ne gobez pas toutes les
> conneries dites par les physiciens relativistes, qui sont aussi des
> hommes, c'est à dire parfois à la fois con et arrogants.
>
> Chose que moi, je n'ai jamais été, malgré ce qu'on raconte.
>
> C'est bizarre, la vie.
>
> I'm going to go up in the rocket, I'm not afraid.
>
> How soon will I arrive?
>
> Please answer, especially if you don't buy all the bullshit said by
> relativistic physicists, who are also men, ie sometimes both stupid and
> arrogant.

Then why are you asking?

>
> Something that I have never been, despite what people say.

Aha.

>
> Life is weird.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
>> 10m/s². It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12 ly.
>> Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
>> months. At what age will he arrive there?
>
> His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so if his proper age at departure is 45.25
> years (weirdly specific), his proper age on arrival will be 48.39 years.
>

And that this answer is correct is not to be answered by which equations
are more beautiful, Hachel, but by experimental result. Not necessarily
this direct measurement to Tau Ceti, of course, because that’s not
necessary, but by other equivalent cases of accelerated objects.

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

Le 17/04/2022 à 20:58, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> Paul Anderson has some good calculators for this and similar problems.
> You want the one which calculates the proper time of a constantly
> accelerating traveler, as well as the speed upon arrival. Although you
> didn't ask, you may also want the time observed by an Earth-bound observer.

No thanks.

I am not trying to find out the time of the terrestrial observer, I know
it as well as the observer present in the rocket.

I don't think anyone in the world masters this theory better than I do.

So thank you, but I don't need any help.

I have all the equations.

What I would like is for everyone to give me their opinion where the shoe
pinches.

I know where all the flaws and paradoxes of the theory are, and in the
example of the Tau Ceti traveler, performed in accelerated mode (compared
to the Langevin traveler which is the same thing but in constant speed
mode), the problem is especially in proper time.

The cranks calculate it correctly, and the specialists are wrong. For the
time observed in the terrestrial reference frame, it is the opposite, the
cranks cannot calculate it correctly, but the relativity specialists give
the correct equations.

For Langevin's traveler, their error consists in posing a contraction of
the distances which is not the correct one, and this is what causes the
paradox of the non-covariance in apparent speeds.

R.H.

Le 17/04/2022 à 20:59, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
>> 10m/s². It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12
>> ly.
>> Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
>> months. At what age will he arrive there?
>
> His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so if his proper age at departure is
> 45.25
> years (weirdly specific), his proper age on arrival will be 48.39 years.
>
>> This is obviously not the correct answer.
>
> It is the correct answer. This can be found in any introductory text.

Yes, I know all this at least as well as you.

But I tell you that is not the right answer.

That's the relativists' answer, and it's based on decades of thinking. I
know it.

But that's not the right answer.

It's strange, but I'm sure if someone gives it, it will be a "crank". A
relativist (because of dogma) will not find it.

R.H.

Le 17/04/2022 à 21:07, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
>>> 10m/s². It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12
>>> ly.
>>> Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
>>> months. At what age will he arrive there?
>>
>> His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so if his proper age at departure is
>> 45.25
>> years (weirdly specific), his proper age on arrival will be 48.39 years.
>>
>
> And that this answer is correct is not to be answered by which equations
> are more beautiful, Hachel, but by experimental result. Not necessarily
> this direct measurement to Tau Ceti, of course, because that’s not
> necessary, but by other equivalent cases of accelerated objects.

I respect your thinking.

But what you say is wrong.

This is the wrong answer, and I've explained why many times.

R.H.

Le 17/04/2022 à 21:07, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

>
> Then why are you asking?

Because I am convinced that a crank can find the right answer on this
specific point.

It may be interesting to show that these people can make mistakes, but
they are not thugs.

Worse, they can say the right things.

This is why if an anti-relativist reads me, I would like him to give me
his opinion on this request:
what will be the duration of the trip for a man who will leave towards tau
Ceti (12 light-years) by constantly accelerating from the earth with an
acceleration of g=10m/s².

The answer is not the one given here by very learned people, but which
uses the wrong equation for proper times.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/04/2022 à 20:58, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> Paul Anderson has some good calculators for this and similar problems.
>> You want the one which calculates the proper time of a constantly
>> accelerating traveler, as well as the speed upon arrival. Although you
>> didn't ask, you may also want the time observed by an Earth-bound observer.
>
> No thanks.
>
> I am not trying to find out the time of the terrestrial observer, I know
> it as well as the observer present in the rocket.
>
> I don't think anyone in the world masters this theory better than I do.
>
> So thank you, but I don't need any help.
>
> I have all the equations.

So you are not interested in what relativity says. You are only interested
in what you have to say on the matter.

That is not discussion. That is looking for a pole to staple your poster
to.

>
> What I would like is for everyone to give me their opinion where the shoe
> pinches.
>
> I know where all the flaws and paradoxes of the theory are, and in the
> example of the Tau Ceti traveler, performed in accelerated mode (compared
> to the Langevin traveler which is the same thing but in constant speed
> mode), the problem is especially in proper time.
>
> The cranks calculate it correctly, and the specialists are wrong. For the
> time observed in the terrestrial reference frame, it is the opposite, the
> cranks cannot calculate it correctly, but the relativity specialists give
> the correct equations.
>
> For Langevin's traveler, their error consists in posing a contraction of
> the distances which is not the correct one, and this is what causes the
> paradox of the non-covariance in apparent speeds.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/04/2022 à 20:59, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
>>> 10m/s². It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12
>>> ly.
>>> Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
>>> months. At what age will he arrive there?
>>
>> His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so if his proper age at departure is
>> 45.25
>> years (weirdly specific), his proper age on arrival will be 48.39 years.
>>
>>> This is obviously not the correct answer.
>>
>> It is the correct answer. This can be found in any introductory text.
>
> Yes, I know all this at least as well as you.
>
> But I tell you that is not the right answer.
>
> That's the relativists' answer, and it's based on decades of thinking. I
> know it.
>
> But that's not the right answer.

But it is. It agrees with experiment, and your equation does not.

>
> It's strange, but I'm sure if someone gives it, it will be a "crank". A
> relativist (because of dogma) will not find it.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/04/2022 à 21:07, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
>>>> 10m/s². It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12
>>>> ly.
>>>> Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
>>>> months. At what age will he arrive there?
>>>
>>> His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so if his proper age at departure is
>>> 45.25
>>> years (weirdly specific), his proper age on arrival will be 48.39 years.
>>>
>>
>> And that this answer is correct is not to be answered by which equations
>> are more beautiful, Hachel, but by experimental result. Not necessarily
>> this direct measurement to Tau Ceti, of course, because that’s not
>> necessary, but by other equivalent cases of accelerated objects.
>
> I respect your thinking.
>
> But what you say is wrong.
>
> This is the wrong answer, and I've explained why many times.

In science, Richard, disputes about which equations are correct is not
determined by insight or beauty or ease of understanding. The disputes
about correctness are settled by experimental measurement, period, end of
story.

If an equation is beautiful to you but there are experimental data that do
not agree with it, then the beautiful equation is wrong.

And there ARE experimental data, not for travelers to Tau Ceti, but for the
passage of time for accelerated particles, that agree with the equations
you think are wrong ns disagree with your equations.

This is the final answer in science, and there is nothing you can do about
it.

>
> R.H.
>
>
>

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

Le 18/04/2022 à 01:25, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> But it is. It agrees with experiment, and your equation does not.

La théorie doit avoir une perfection interne (clarté théorique sans
paradoxes) et une perfection externe (prévision expérimentale).

J'ai les deux.

The theory must have internal perfection (theoretical clarity without
paradoxes) and external perfection (experimental prediction).

I have both.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/04/2022 à 21:07, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>>
>> Then why are you asking?
>
>
> Because I am convinced that a crank can find the right answer on this
> specific point.

They can, but it’s not likely, and in your case, your solution is ruled out
by experimental measurement. Therefore it is wrong.

>
> It may be interesting to show that these people can make mistakes, but
> they are not thugs.
>
> Worse, they can say the right things.
>
> This is why if an anti-relativist reads me, I would like him to give me
> his opinion on this request:
> what will be the duration of the trip for a man who will leave towards tau
> Ceti (12 light-years) by constantly accelerating from the earth with an
> acceleration of g=10m/s².
>
> The answer is not the one given here by very learned people, but which
> uses the wrong equation for proper times.
>
> R.H.
>
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/04/2022 à 01:25, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> But it is. It agrees with experiment, and your equation does not.
>
> La théorie doit avoir une perfection interne (clarté théorique sans
> paradoxes) et une perfection externe (prévision expérimentale).
>
> J'ai les deux.
>
> The theory must have internal perfection (theoretical clarity without
> paradoxes) and external perfection (experimental prediction).

ACCURATE experimental prediction. Yours gets the wrong answer, by
experiment.
Thus its internal clarity means nothing. It is wrong.

>
> I have both.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 18/04/2022 à 01:25, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> In science, Richard, disputes about which equations are correct is not
> determined by insight or beauty or ease of understanding. The disputes
> about correctness are settled by experimental measurement, period, end of
> story.
>
> If an equation is beautiful to you but there are experimental data that do
> not agree with it, then the beautiful equation is wrong.
>
> And there ARE experimental data, not for travelers to Tau Ceti, but for the
> passage of time for accelerated particles, that agree with the equations
> you think are wrong ns disagree with your equations.
>
> This is the final answer in science, and there is nothing you can do about
> it.

You are obviously right.

But that's not quite what I'm talking about.

I am of a "mystical" nature in the sense that I believe that beauty, my
clarity, simplicity, are often proof of the truth.

Take the Pythagorean theorem.

a²+b²=c² is very simple and very beautiful.

Take the third remarkable identity (a+b)(a-b)=a²-b²

Take the law of acceleration x=1/2 g t²

All these equations are very beautiful and very logical.

As for the theory of relativity, if you look closely, the correct Lorentz
transformations are very beautiful, and they are very true.

On the other hand, a Langevin described in apparent velocities shows that
there is a huge problem that can only be solved (paradox) if we use the
correct equations, and this goes through the relativistic elasticity
equation of the lengths and distances, and not by this strange word
"contraction of lengths" which will turn out to be false.

l'=l.sqrt(1-v²/c²), it's wrong, and it's theoretically very ugly, since
it induces a theoretical paradox (loss of internal perfection). I'm not
even talking about experimental external perfection the day we can do it.
The experience will be de facto boring. And that, I know in advance. As I
knew in advance that the Italian scientists who thought they had found
superluminal neutrinos were wrong. I don't even need the experience. An
experiment will NEVER validate a contradictory theory.

R.H.

Le 18/04/2022 à 01:41, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

>>> Then why are you asking?
>>
>>
>> Because I am convinced that a crank can find the right answer on this
>> specific point.
>
> They can, but it’s not likely, and in your case, your solution is ruled out
> by experimental measurement. Therefore it is wrong.

Non.

R.H.

Le 18/04/2022 à 01:41, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> ACCURATE experimental prediction. Yours gets the wrong answer, by
> experiment.
> Thus its internal clarity means nothing. It is wrong.

No experimentation can go against what I say, and I have never seen any.

On the other hand, the day will come when we will verify that everything I
said was true.

A theory cannot be true if it contains nonsense.

There are nonsense that I have explained well in some parts of the theory.

My reviews are extremely accurate.

I don't say anything for the sake of saying anything.

R.H.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 4:10:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> A traveler will start from the earth with a comfortable acceleration of
> >> 10m/s². It will reach, without ever braking, the star Tau Ceti, located at 12
> >> ly. Suppose the traveler boarded the rocket at the age of 45 years and three
> >> months. At what age will he arrive there?
> >
> > His elapsed proper will be 3.14 years, so if his proper age at departure is
> > 45.25 years (weirdly specific), his proper age on arrival will be 48.39 years.
>
> That's the relativists' answer, and it's based on decades of thinking. I
> know it. But that's not the right answer. The theory must have internal
> perfection (theoretical clarity without paradoxes) and external perfection
> (experimental prediction).

Right, and special relativity has both internal perfection (theoretical
clarity without any internal contradictions or "paradoxes") and unblemished
agreement with experiment.

> I have both.

To the contrary, you have neither: Your reasoning is internally self-
contradictory and fallacious, and your predictions are falsified by
experiment.

> I believe that beauty, clarity, simplicity, are often proof of the truth.

It is true that the correct equations of physics are quite beautiful,
and it's even true that concepts of beauty played a role in the
discovery of those equations. However, your alternative equations
are not beautiful, they are ugly, so beauty does not support you.

But first, your reasoning must be free of illogic and self-contradiction.
Your problem is that you see logical inconsistency where there
is none (i.e., in the beautiful equations of standard physics that
also happen to agree with experiment), and you fail to see it where
it is abundantly present (i.e., in your ugly equations, that also happen
to be falsified by experiment).