I post here the direct equation giving the observable speed of an object
in the reference frame that it left (to follow a constant acceleration)
according to the distance where it is.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KKv3GJ1sEtlImBFGotaLh8vu9Rw@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Problem: a rocket leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of
10m/s², what will be its observable speed when it has traveled 9 million
kilometres?

R.H.

--
"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.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=KKv3GJ1sEtlImBFGotaLh8vu9Rw@jntp>

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> I post here the direct equation giving the observable speed of an object
> in the reference frame that it left (to follow a constant acceleration)
> according to the distance where it is.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KKv3GJ1sEtlImBFGotaLh8vu9Rw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> Problem: a rocket leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of
> 10m/s², what will be its observable speed when it has traveled 9 million
> kilometres?
>
> R.H.
>

Unfortunately, this equation fails experimental test.

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

Le 19/04/2022 à 17:48, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> I post here the direct equation giving the observable speed of an object
>> in the reference frame that it left (to follow a constant acceleration)
>> according to the distance where it is.
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KKv3GJ1sEtlImBFGotaLh8vu9Rw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>
>> Problem: a rocket leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of
>> 10m/s², what will be its observable speed when it has traveled 9 million
>> kilometres?
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, this equation fails experimental test.

It is good to dialogue and give ideas.

But it is not good to lie.

Not only no experience in the world has ever contradicted my relativistic
equations, but on the contrary, some unexplained experiments, and
theoretical paradoxes are explained by me.

I advise you not to talk too much nonsense on this forum, you could be
blamed for it.

People are mean, you know.

Moreover, this equation gives the same result as the results predicted by
relativists.

It is simply clearer, faster and easier to use.

If you shoot me on that, you're shooting on the science that is theirs
too.

Be careful of your positions.

Stay on the heights.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 19/04/2022 à 17:48, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> I post here the direct equation giving the observable speed of an object
>>> in the reference frame that it left (to follow a constant acceleration)
>>> according to the distance where it is.
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KKv3GJ1sEtlImBFGotaLh8vu9Rw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>>
>>> Problem: a rocket leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of
>>> 10m/s², what will be its observable speed when it has traveled 9 million
>>> kilometres?
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, this equation fails experimental test.
>
>
> It is good to dialogue and give ideas.
>
> But it is not good to lie.
>
> Not only no experience in the world has ever contradicted my relativistic
> equations, but on the contrary, some unexplained experiments, and
> theoretical paradoxes are explained by me.

No, this is incorrect, and I’ve already explained the context of
accelerated particles, and those data agree with relativity and therefore
disagree with your equations.

You choose to deny this, claim it impossible, claim that because you don’t
know it then it is not known. But this is a fact in reality, no matter
whether you acknowledge it.

>
> I advise you not to talk too much nonsense on this forum, you could be
> blamed for it.
>
> People are mean, you know.
>
> Moreover, this equation gives the same result as the results predicted by
> relativists.

No, it does not. As you have said in the Tau Ceti example, YOUR number for
the elapsed time of the racket traveler is different than what physicists
calculate for that number.

Your equations generate different numbers. That is a good thing, then,
because then this is a distinguishing feature of your idea that separates
it from relativity. Then it is straightforward science to use experimental
measurement to determine which is right. That is exactly what all
scientists crave — a clear and unambiguous experimental test to see which
one is right. Only a nonscientist would say that he does NOT want
experiment to decide but would prefer one to be favored over the other on
the basis of “aesthetic beauty” or “common sense appeal” or “most like what
is already known”.

>
> It is simply clearer, faster and easier to use.
>
> If you shoot me on that, you're shooting on the science that is theirs
> too.
>
> Be careful of your positions.
>
> Stay on the heights.
>
> R.H.
>
>

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

On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 17:48:52 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > I post here the direct equation giving the observable speed of an object
> > in the reference frame that it left (to follow a constant acceleration)
> > according to the distance where it is.
> >
> > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KKv3GJ1sEtlImBFGotaLh8vu9Rw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >
> > Problem: a rocket leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of
> > 10m/s², what will be its observable speed when it has traveled 9 million
> > kilometres?
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> Unfortunately, this equation fails experimental test.

Unfortunately, that's a plain, impudent lie, expected
of course from a fanatic idiot.

On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 21:33:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 19/04/2022 à 17:48, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>> I post here the direct equation giving the observable speed of an object
> >>> in the reference frame that it left (to follow a constant acceleration)
> >>> according to the distance where it is.
> >>>
> >>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KKv3GJ1sEtlImBFGotaLh8vu9Rw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >>>
> >>> Problem: a rocket leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of
> >>> 10m/s², what will be its observable speed when it has traveled 9 million
> >>> kilometres?
> >>>
> >>> R.H.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, this equation fails experimental test.
> >
> >
> > It is good to dialogue and give ideas.
> >
> > But it is not good to lie.
> >
> > Not only no experience in the world has ever contradicted my relativistic
> > equations, but on the contrary, some unexplained experiments, and
> > theoretical paradoxes are explained by me.
> No, this is incorrect, and I’ve already explained the context of
> accelerated particles, and those data agree with relativity and therefore
> disagree with your equations.

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 4/19/2022 1:37 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/04/2022 à 17:48, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> I post here the direct equation giving the observable speed of an
>>> object in the reference frame that it left (to follow a constant
>>> acceleration) according to the distance where it is.
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KKv3GJ1sEtlImBFGotaLh8vu9Rw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>>
>>>
>>> Problem: a rocket leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of
>>> 10m/s², what will be its observable speed when it has traveled 9
>>> million kilometres?
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this equation fails experimental test.
>
>
> It is good to dialogue and give ideas.
>
> But it is not good to lie.
>
> Not only no experience in the world has ever contradicted my
> relativistic equations,

Sorry, but as Odd explained, experimental data has contradicted your claims.

> but on the contrary, some unexplained
> experiments, and theoretical paradoxes are explained by me.

Nope.
>
> I advise you not to talk too much nonsense on this forum, you could be
> blamed for it.

You will be blamed for your own incorrect statements.
>
> People are mean, you know.
>
> Moreover, this equation gives the same result as the results predicted
> by relativists.

If the equations are not identical, they will predict different things.
>
> It is simply clearer, faster and easier to use.

Being clearer, faster and easier is of no use if it's wrong.
>
> If you shoot me on that, you're shooting on the science that is theirs too.

Not possible since you disagree with the actual data.
>
> Be careful of your positions.
>
> Stay on the heights.
>
> R.H.

I will also point out that insisting that you are correct when
experimental data contradicts your claims is a sign of being a crackpot.
Delusional thinking, you know.

Le 19/04/2022 à 22:20, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> On 4/19/2022 1:37 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Sorry, but as Odd explained, experimental data has contradicted your claims.

No.

>> but on the contrary, some unexplained
>> experiments, and theoretical paradoxes are explained by me.
>
> Nope.

So you haven't read me.

>> Moreover, this equation gives the same result as the results predicted
>> by relativists.
>
> If the equations are not identical, they will predict different things.

It's what I say.

I have the same equation for terrestrial observable time, but not for
proper time (in accelerated frames).

I'm surprised that people don't say to me: "it's interesting, how do you
do it? Let's sit down and talk"

>>
>> It is simply clearer, faster and easier to use.
>
> Being clearer, faster and easier is of no use if it's wrong.

Of course.

But if is better and true?

How you know?

>> If you shoot me on that, you're shooting on the science that is theirs too.
>
> Not possible since you disagree with the actual data.
>>
>> Be careful of your positions.
>>
>> Stay on the heights.
>>
>> R.H.
>
> I will also point out that insisting that you are correct when
> experimental data contradicts your claims is a sign of being a crackpot.
> Delusional thinking, you know.

No experimental data contradicts me.

Nether.

If an experimental fact contradicted me, I would know it.
But I wonder how an experimental fact could contradict a correct and
extremely predictive reasoning.

You don't ask yourself if everything I say contradicts things that have
already been tested. That's a shame. You would see no.

On the other hand, I am certain (because everything hangs together) that
the things not yet tested will be predicted by my equations.

I'm sure.

Everything is based on theoretical logic and the correct understanding of
what would happen.

It would be very surprising if the experiences were different from what I
predicted with clarity.

In particular the elasticity of distances and proper times in accelerated
media.

What Minkowski cannot predict in his 4D space-time which is an abstract,
not the reality of things.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 19/04/2022 à 22:20, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 4/19/2022 1:37 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but as Odd explained, experimental data has contradicted your claims.
>
> No.
>
>>> but on the contrary, some unexplained
>>> experiments, and theoretical paradoxes are explained by me.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> So you haven't read me.
>
>>> Moreover, this equation gives the same result as the results predicted
>>> by relativists.
>>
>> If the equations are not identical, they will predict different things.
>
> It's what I say.
>
> I have the same equation for terrestrial observable time, but not for
> proper time (in accelerated frames).

The latter is what is invalidated by measurements of accelerated particles.

>
> I'm surprised that people don't say to me: "it's interesting, how do you
> do it? Let's sit down and talk"
>
>
>
>>>
>>> It is simply clearer, faster and easier to use.
>>
>> Being clearer, faster and easier is of no use if it's wrong.
>
> Of course.
>
> But if is better and true?

But experiment says it is not true.

>
> How you know?
>
>>> If you shoot me on that, you're shooting on the science that is theirs too.
>>
>> Not possible since you disagree with the actual data.
>>>
>>> Be careful of your positions.
>>>
>>> Stay on the heights.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>
>> I will also point out that insisting that you are correct when
>> experimental data contradicts your claims is a sign of being a crackpot.
>> Delusional thinking, you know.
>
> No experimental data contradicts me.

That is incorrect.

Whether you are unaware of those results is irrelevant.
Whether you believe the results is irrelevant.

>
> Nether.
>
> If an experimental fact contradicted me, I would know it.

That is false. You don’t know about it because you have not read the
experimental literature.

> But I wonder how an experimental fact could contradict a correct and
> extremely predictive reasoning.

Happens often. That is what science is about.

>
> You don't ask yourself if everything I say contradicts things that have
> already been tested. That's a shame. You would see no.
>
> On the other hand, I am certain (because everything hangs together) that
> the things not yet tested will be predicted by my equations.
>
> I'm sure.
>
> Everything is based on theoretical logic and the correct understanding of
> what would happen.
>
> It would be very surprising if the experiences were different from what I
> predicted with clarity.
>
> In particular the elasticity of distances and proper times in accelerated
> media.
>
> What Minkowski cannot predict in his 4D space-time which is an abstract,
> not the reality of things.
>
> R.H.
>
>
>

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

Le 20/04/2022 à 00:00, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> The latter is what is invalidated by measurements of accelerated particles.

I really appreciate your answers and comments.

But on this you are wrong.

R.H.

On 4/19/2022 5:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/04/2022 à 22:20, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 4/19/2022 1:37 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but as Odd explained, experimental data has contradicted your
>> claims.
>
> No.

Yes, it has. Yet again, remember 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

>
>>> but on the contrary, some unexplained experiments, and theoretical
>>> paradoxes are explained by me.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> So you haven't read me.

I've only seen this unsupported claim from you. Since we already know
your "theory" is wrong at least most of the time, it's exceedingly
unlikely it will be correct elsewhere where the standard model is wrong.
>
>>> Moreover, this equation gives the same result as the results
>>> predicted by relativists.
>>
>> If the equations are not identical, they will predict different things.
>
> It's what I say.

Nope. The math doesn't lie. Different equations will predict different
results.
>
> I have the same equation for terrestrial observable time, but not for
> proper time (in accelerated frames).
>
> I'm surprised that people don't say to me: "it's interesting, how do you
> do it? Let's sit down and talk"

The first thing any scientist would do is "Does it predict already known
results?" They will see the answer is "no", so your claim will get
dropped like a hot rock.

If I said I had a new weather model that was better than the existing
weather model, but one of the predictions of my model was that the sky
is yellow, what do you think anyone would think of my model?
>
>
>
>>>
>>> It is simply clearer, faster and easier to use.
>>
>> Being clearer, faster and easier is of no use if it's wrong.
>
> Of course.

So you agree your little "theory" should be dropped like a hot rock?
>
> But if is better and true?
> How you know?

We already know that it doesn't match existing experimental data. That's
how we know it's wrong.

>>> If you shoot me on that, you're shooting on the science that is
>>> theirs too.
>>
>> Not possible since you disagree with the actual data.
>>>
>>> Be careful of your positions.
>>>
>>> Stay on the heights.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>
>> I will also point out that insisting that you are correct when
>> experimental data contradicts your claims is a sign of being a
>> crackpot. Delusional thinking, you know.
>
> No experimental data contradicts me.

It does. Odd already told you. Did Odd provide a link? Even if just a
description, that should be enough for you to find what contradicts you.
>
> Nether.
>
> If an experimental fact contradicted me, I would know it.

Why, do you claim to know everything? You don't. So there's an
excellent chance you don't know of the contradicting facts. (well, you
do since Odd told you)

> But I wonder how an experimental fact could contradict a correct and
> extremely predictive reasoning.

Because you made a mistake somewhere in your "extremely predictive
reasoning".

>
> You don't ask yourself if everything I say contradicts things that have
> already been tested. That's a shame. You would see no.

We have already seen yes.
>
> On the other hand, I am certain (because everything hangs together) that
> the things not yet tested will be predicted by my equations.
>
> I'm sure.

So is every other crank. Even Mitch, who claims he told NASA the WEBB
telescope was falling, and it did fall. He's sure of that, too.
>
> Everything is based on theoretical logic and the correct understanding
> of what would happen.
>
> It would be very surprising if the experiences were different from what
> I predicted with clarity.

But that's what happens in science sometimes. The best known example is
the Michelson-Morley Experiment. They did everything well and logically
and made very clear predictions. Yet the results were completely
different. Another was Rutherford's gold foil experiment, where some
alpha particles were reflected back almost 180 degrees. What was the
quote? Like a cannonball bouncing off flypaper or something?
>
> In particular the elasticity of distances and proper times in
> accelerated media.
>
> What Minkowski cannot predict in his 4D space-time which is an abstract,
> not the reality of things.
>
> R.H.
>

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 20/04/2022 à 00:00, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> The latter is what is invalidated by measurements of accelerated particles.
>
> I really appreciate your answers and comments.
>
> But on this you are wrong.

No, I don’t think so. You are free to show that your equation for the
proper time for a particle accelerated in a real LINAC agrees with the
measured, published values. To do that, you will need to spend some time in
a university science library.

What I know is that the physicist’s equation for that proper time does
agree with the measured values. And I know that your equation produces
different answers.

Refusal to look at experimental data that ALREADY EXISTS is a sure way to
ensure that you get ignored.

>
>
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 20/04/2022 à 00:37, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> Refusal to look at experimental data that ALREADY EXISTS is a sure way to
> ensure that you get ignored.

The experiment you are asking for is very difficult to do.

I thought of several experiments to show that information can be
transmitted instantaneously.

You now know very well what I said about space and time.

"We observe the universe live-live".

I also looked for a way to show that time dilation and length contraction
are actually improper terms, and that we should rather speak of elasticity
in both cases.

The equations, you have them, I have given them a hundred times.

I come back to the proper time of accelerated particles (or rockets).

The proper time is very simple to calculate: Tr=sqrt(2x/a).

For To, it's also quite simple:
To =(x/c).sqrt (1+2c²/ax)

But this second equation is already known and applied.

For the first, that is to say for proper time, I can only advise.

Perhaps accelerating electrically charged and rapidly disintegrating
particles.

The greater their proper time, the further they will disintegrate.

If we take my very simple formula which corresponds to what I believe to
be fair and obvious, the particles should disintegrate on average later,
therefore further.

That is to say much further than the Newtonian theory (what we know), but
less far however than the accepted relativistic theory.

I don't know what kind of particles that are both electrically charged and
atomically unstable could do that.

Nor if the accuracy between the two equations (theirs and mine) would be
reliable enough.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 20/04/2022 à 00:37, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> Refusal to look at experimental data that ALREADY EXISTS is a sure way to
>> ensure that you get ignored.
>
> The experiment you are asking for is very difficult to do.

That’s ok. You don’t have to do the experiment. It’s already been done, a
number of times in fact, and the results are published in several places.

You should be able to compare the predictions from your equation to those
results.

>
> I thought of several experiments to show that information can be
> transmitted instantaneously.
>
> You now know very well what I said about space and time.
>
> "We observe the universe live-live".
>
> I also looked for a way to show that time dilation and length contraction
> are actually improper terms, and that we should rather speak of elasticity
> in both cases.
>
> The equations, you have them, I have given them a hundred times.
>
> I come back to the proper time of accelerated particles (or rockets).
>
> The proper time is very simple to calculate: Tr=sqrt(2x/a).
>
> For To, it's also quite simple:
> To =(x/c).sqrt (1+2c²/ax)
>
> But this second equation is already known and applied.
>
> For the first, that is to say for proper time, I can only advise.
>
> Perhaps accelerating electrically charged and rapidly disintegrating
> particles.
>
> The greater their proper time, the further they will disintegrate.
>
> If we take my very simple formula which corresponds to what I believe to
> be fair and obvious, the particles should disintegrate on average later,
> therefore further.
>
> That is to say much further than the Newtonian theory (what we know), but
> less far however than the accepted relativistic theory.
>
> I don't know what kind of particles that are both electrically charged and
> atomically unstable could do that.
>
> Nor if the accuracy between the two equations (theirs and mine) would be
> reliable enough.
>
> R.H.
>
>
>

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

On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 22:20:10 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 1:37 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 19/04/2022 à 17:48, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>> I post here the direct equation giving the observable speed of an
> >>> object in the reference frame that it left (to follow a constant
> >>> acceleration) according to the distance where it is.
> >>>
> >>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KKv3GJ1sEtlImBFGotaLh8vu9Rw@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Problem: a rocket leaves the earth with a constant acceleration of
> >>> 10m/s², what will be its observable speed when it has traveled 9
> >>> million kilometres?
> >>>
> >>> R.H.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, this equation fails experimental test.
> >
> >
> > It is good to dialogue and give ideas.
> >
> > But it is not good to lie.
> >
> > Not only no experience in the world has ever contradicted my
> > relativistic equations,
> Sorry, but as Odd explained, experimental data has contradicted your claims.

Sorry, but only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
lie.