On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 01:25:32 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@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.

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

On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 01:41:59 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@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.

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

On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 01:25:33 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 17/04/2022 à 21:07, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> Stan Fultoni <fulto...@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.

It's determined by the opinion of a poor idiot woodworker and
the rules of his moronic newspeak.

On 4/17/2022 7:50 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, but experiments *HAVE* gone against what you say, and in science,
experimental results rule over anyone's claims.

Richard Feynman said it best:

"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."

-Richard P. Feynman

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

Only if experimental results agree with you.

But we already know that won't happen. Because they already disagree.
>
> A theory cannot be true if it contains nonsense.

What do you mean "nonsense"? It doesn't mean something you dislike.
>
> There are nonsense that I have explained well in some parts of the theory.

You have yet to find any such "nonsense".
>
> My reviews are extremely accurate.

Wrong, since they disagree with experimental results.
>
> I don't say anything for the sake of saying anything.
>
You only say it as part of your obsessive hatred for Einstein.

On 4/17/2022 7:12 PM, Richard Hachel 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.

Wrong. Experimental results are what matters.
>
> This is the wrong answer, and I've explained why many times.
>
Nope. Again, read what Feynman had to say.

"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."

-Richard P. Feynman

Or, in simpler language, "experimental results rule, 'beautiful'
theories drool."

Le 18/04/2022 à 03:29, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> 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).

In short, you agree with me on the substance, but not on the form.

But it's already better than nothing.

R.H.

Le 18/04/2022 à 07:45, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> But what you say is wrong.
>
> Wrong. Experimental results are what matters.
>>
>> This is the wrong answer, and I've explained why many times.
>>
> Nope. Again, read what Feynman had to say.
>
> "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."
>
> -Richard P. Feynman
>
> Or, in simpler language, "experimental results rule, 'beautiful'
> theories drool."

Yes of course.

Do you really think I don't know all that?

You sincerely believe that I want to affirm things against the
experiments?

I never said that.

N.B. Richard Feyman est stupide, il ne m'arriverait jamais, moi, de dire
une connerie pareille.

Autant dire "un chien est un chien", ou "quand il faut très beau, il
pleut rarement".

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> 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.

Then you are no longer doing science. Instead, you are playing a mental
game of pseudo-science art.

Science, as a human activity, has as its essence the testing of all ideas
against experiment and observation. Ignore that, and you simply are not
doing science anymore, and any claims of “truth” are not based on
scientific thinking.

>
> 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.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> 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.

Oui. This is heart and soul of science, and the experimental results are
facts that no scientist would ignore.

You could spend another 40 years prattling on about the beauty of your
equations, but they would get no notice anywhere that scientific thinking
prevails.

>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> 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.

You have not looked.

I have.

And yes, it is a simple fact that experiment goes against what you say.

>
> 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.

Relativity has no nonsense. What is true, however, is that you have never
learned what relativity says, because of your poor choices of material to
try to learn what it says. This is a matter of bad choices on your part and
nothing else.

>
> 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.
>

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

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:49:20 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Right, and special relativity has both internal perfection (theoretical
> > clarity without any internal contradictions or "paradoxes") and unblemished
> > agreement with experiment. In contrast, your reasoning is internally self-
> > contradictory and fallacious, and your predictions are falsified by
> > experiment.
>
> In short, you agree with me on the substance, but not on the form.
We agree formally that a theory must be logically consistent, but we
disagree on the substance. Again, special relativity is logically consistent
and beautiful, whereas your beliefs are logically fallacious and ugly nonsense.

> Take the Pythagorean theorem.
> a²+b²=c² is very simple and very beautiful.

Yes, and special relativity has the analog x² - t² = s² . Simple, beautiful,
logically consistent, and agrees with experiment. In contrast, your beliefs
are complicated, ugly, logically inconsistent, and empirically falsified.
Agreed?

Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:49:20 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Right, and special relativity has both internal perfection (theoretical
>>> clarity without any internal contradictions or "paradoxes") and unblemished
>>> agreement with experiment. In contrast, your reasoning is internally self-
>>> contradictory and fallacious, and your predictions are falsified by
>>> experiment.
>>
>> In short, you agree with me on the substance, but not on the form.
>
> We agree formally that a theory must be logically consistent, but we
> disagree on the substance. Again, special relativity is logically consistent
> and beautiful, whereas your beliefs are logically fallacious and ugly nonsense.
>
>> Take the Pythagorean theorem.
>> a²+b²=c² is very simple and very beautiful.
>
> Yes, and special relativity has the analog x² - t² = s² . Simple, beautiful,
> logically consistent, and agrees with experiment. In contrast, your beliefs
> are complicated, ugly, logically inconsistent, and empirically falsified.
> Agreed?
>

At this point, it’s worth making note of the strong undertow in Richard’s
emotional milieu.

He has played around trying to understand relativity for well over half his
life. Note my use of the phrase “played around”. He has not invested that
time wisely, dabbling in internet resources and online discussions and
never getting around to reading a real book on the subject. This came with
the usual consequences of bad presentations, conflicting messages, and
frustration, which he falsely laid at the feet of physicists, rather than
the crap non-physicist authors he was reading and his own choices.

Now mix in the classic crank careen off the path to “think things through
himself” and come up with his own idea. This is sheer self-poisoning when
the person doing it is narcissistic and eager for attention. The
self-generated idea becomes the central focus, the salvation element, the
object of obsession.

The long time he has invested in this, plus his adoration of his own
creation, is now part of who he is. Abandoning that and starting over again
is — as he recently said himself — unthinkable.

He is a drowning man. Unwilling to take swimming lessons, he went into the
sea until he was over his head, and now the undertow is keeping him from
rescue on dry land. But he is happy to bubble up to to the surface and to
tell the people waving at him from the shore that they are the ones
drowning in sand, and that he is fine.

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

Le 18/04/2022 à 14:36, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> And yes, it is a simple fact that experiment goes against what you say.

Impossible.

R.H.

Le 18/04/2022 à 15:37, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:49:20 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > Right, and special relativity has both internal perfection (theoretical
>> > clarity without any internal contradictions or "paradoxes") and unblemished
>> > agreement with experiment. In contrast, your reasoning is internally self-
>> > contradictory and fallacious, and your predictions are falsified by
>> > experiment.
>>
>> In short, you agree with me on the substance, but not on the form.
>
> We agree formally that a theory must be logically consistent, but we
> disagree on the substance. Again, special relativity is logically consistent
> and beautiful, whereas your beliefs are logically fallacious and ugly nonsense.
>
>> Take the Pythagorean theorem.
>> a²+b²=c² is very simple and very beautiful.
>
> Yes, and special relativity has the analog x² - t² = s² . Simple, beautiful,
>
> logically consistent, and agrees with experiment. In contrast, your beliefs
> are complicated, ugly, logically inconsistent, and empirically falsified.
> Agreed?

No.

It's not very beautiful.

To²=Tr²+Et² is more beautiful.

And this incredible equation remains valid in accelerated repositories.

R.H.

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-7, utter crank Richard Hachel wrote:

> To²=Tr²+Et² is more beautiful.
>
> And this incredible equation remains valid in accelerated repositories.

Do your patients know?

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/04/2022 à 14:36, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> And yes, it is a simple fact that experiment goes against what you say.
>
> Impossible.
>
> R.H.
>

I’m afraid it’s true, Richard.

Now, if reality is not something you care to indulge in if it conflicts
with your “mystery” notions, then just please note that reality will
proceed without you.

What color are the trees on your planet?

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

On 4/17/2022 6:25 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 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.

Are you sure? He said, "I don't think anyone in the world masters this
theory better than I do." As a part-time observer, who do I believe?

Clarity request.

>> 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 18/04/2022 à 17:16, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 18/04/2022 à 14:36, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>
>>> And yes, it is a simple fact that experiment goes against what you say.
>>
>> Impossible.
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> I’m afraid it’s true, Richard.
>
> Now, if reality is not something you care to indulge in if it conflicts
> with your “mystery” notions, then just please note that reality will
> proceed without you.
>
> What color are the trees on your planet?

If you find a single experience that does not go my way, I immediately
retract everything I said.

R.H.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/2022 6:25 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>
> Are you sure? He said, "I don't think anyone in the world masters this
> theory better than I do." As a part-time observer, who do I believe?
>
> Clarity request.
>

In his original post in this thread, he asked for the proper time
experienced by a rocket traveler with a given proper acceleration to get to
Tau Ceti.

Michael Moroney mentioned that Paul Anderson had some good calculators for
this ask. It was also answered explicitly by another respondent.

And then Richard said, “So thank you, but I don’t need any help. I have all
the equations.”

Then why ask?

>
>
>>> 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

On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:45:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/17/2022 7:12 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 17/04/2022 à 21:07, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> Stan Fultoni <fulto...@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.
> Wrong. Experimental results are what matters.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
insane Shit TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

> "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."

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
insane Shit TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 14:36:54 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Science, as a human activity, has as its essence the testing of all ideas
> against experiment and observation.

Or, at least, that's what an idiot is asserting without
any evidence.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/04/2022 à 17:16, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 18/04/2022 à 14:36, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>
>>>> And yes, it is a simple fact that experiment goes against what you say.
>>>
>>> Impossible.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> I’m afraid it’s true, Richard.
>>
>> Now, if reality is not something you care to indulge in if it conflicts
>> with your “mystery” notions, then just please note that reality will
>> proceed without you.
>>
>> What color are the trees on your planet?
>
>
> If you find a single experience that does not go my way, I immediately
> retract everything I said.

As I mentioned to you, accelerated particles with finite lifetimes agree
with the physicist’s equations, which then in turn disagree with your
equations. The references abound in the physics literature, which you do
not look at.

So you know, it is an obligation of a physicist to check his ideas (and his
equations) by doing the library research to find data that is relevant, to
see if those data are consistent with his calculations. There are also
compendia of those data that help shortcut those processes, which the
physicist has learned to mine.

The physicist does not presume that his equations are correct until someone
brings him a counter example.

If you did not know this is how physicists work, then I suppose that’s
another reason you are where you are.

>
> R.H.
>

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

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

>> If you find a single experience that does not go my way, I immediately
>> retract everything I said.
>
> As I mentioned to you, accelerated particles with finite lifetimes agree
> with the physicist’s equations, The particles obviously do not disagree with
> my equations.

The particles obviously do not disagree with my equations.

> which then in turn disagree with your
> equations.

They haven't read them.

If they had read them, and understood them, they would agree with them.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/04/2022 à 18:25, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>>> If you find a single experience that does not go my way, I immediately
>>> retract everything I said.
>>
>> As I mentioned to you, accelerated particles with finite lifetimes agree
>> with the physicist’s equations, The particles obviously do not disagree with
>> my equations.
>
> The particles obviously do not disagree with my equations.

You are deluding yourself.

You get a different numerical answer for the time it would take for a
traveler with a certain acceleration to get to the destination, compared to
the numerical answer provided by the physicist’s relativistic equations.

You would then of course get a different numerical answer for the proper
time elapsed for a particle undergoing acceleration to cover the distance
in a linear accelerator, compared to the numerical answer provided by the
physicists’ equations.

But the answer obtained from the physicists’ equations match the measured
proper time for those particles. Experiment agrees with their equations and
therefore *necessarily* disagrees with yours.

>
>> which then in turn disagree with your
>> equations.
>
> They haven't read them.
>
> If they had read them, and understood them, they would agree with them.

It has nothing to do with physicists’ perception of your equations. It only
has to do with which equations agree with measured results. Relativity as
described by physicists have equations that have been found to agree with
experiment.

>
> R.H.
>
>
>

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

On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 18:57:16 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> But the answer obtained from the physicists’ equations match the measured
> proper time for those particles.

No, poor lying stinker, they only match gedanken "proper
time".
As anyone can check in GPS, measured proper time is
t'=t, like it always was.