There are, in the world today, three different ideologies dealing with
accelerated repositories.

That of relativistic physicists, that of "Newtonian cranks", and that of
good old Richard Hachel.

It's quite fun to consider.

Everyone sees things differently, especially Tr (proper time) and To
(observable or improper time).

1. Relativists posit:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
Tr=(c/a)arcsinh(at/c)
But one of the two equations is wrong.

2. The Newtonian cranks, who persist in saying that the SR is false, and
who pose:
To=sqrt(2x/c)
Tr=sqrt(2x/c)
But one of the two equations is wrong.

3. And me, taking here and there, and posing:
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
Tr=sqrt(2x/c)

It's really fun after all.

I will be accused of eating at all the racks.

Good nigth.

R.H.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 10:17:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> There are, in the world today, three different ideologies dealing with
> accelerated repositories.
>
> That of relativistic physicists, that of "Newtonian cranks", and that of
> good old Richard Hachel.
>
> It's quite fun to consider.
>
> Everyone sees things differently, especially Tr (proper time) and To
> (observable or improper time).
>
> 1. Relativists posit:
> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
> Tr=(c/a)arcsinh(at/c)
> But one of the two equations is wrong.
>
> 2. The Newtonian cranks, who persist in saying that the SR is false, and
> who pose:
> To=sqrt(2x/c)
> Tr=sqrt(2x/c)
> But one of the two equations is wrong.
>
> 3. And me, taking here and there, and posing:
> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
> Tr=sqrt(2x/c)
>
> It's really fun after all.
>
> I will be accused of eating at all the racks.
>
> Good nigth.
>
>
> R.H.

Not even wrong. Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

Le 28/04/2022 à 20:10, JanPB a écrit :
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 10:17:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> There are, in the world today, three different ideologies dealing with
>> accelerated repositories.
>>
>> That of relativistic physicists, that of "Newtonian cranks", and that of
>> good old Richard Hachel.
>>
>> It's quite fun to consider.
>>
>> Everyone sees things differently, especially Tr (proper time) and To
>> (observable or improper time).
>>
>> 1. Relativists posit:
>> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
>> Tr=(c/a)arcsinh(at/c)
>> But one of the two equations is wrong.
>>
>> 2. The Newtonian cranks, who persist in saying that the SR is false, and
>> who pose:
>> To=sqrt(2x/c)
>> Tr=sqrt(2x/c)
>> But one of the two equations is wrong.
>>
>> 3. And me, taking here and there, and posing:
>> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
>> Tr=sqrt(2x/c)
>>
>> It's really fun after all.
>>
>> I will be accused of eating at all the racks.
>>
>> Good nigth.
>>
>>
>> R.H.
>
> Not even wrong. Gobbledygook.
>
> --
> Jan

Nobody is forcing you to read my gibberish.

If you don't like it, move on.

R.H.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 10:17:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> [edited for clarity]
> 2. The Newtonians say
> t=sqrt(2x/c)

You typed "c" instead of "a". According to Galilean and Newtonian
relativity the coordinates x,t of an object beginning from rest at the
origin and undergoing constant acceleration a are related by x = (1/2)at^2,
which means t = sqrt(2x/a). In Newtonian physics, the elapsed proper
time for the object is simply t as well.

> 1. Relativists say:
> t = (x/c)sqrt(1+2c²/ax) ..... (1a)
> tau = (c/a)arcsinh(at/c) ...... (1b)

Right, (1b) comes from integrating sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path defined
by (1a), which is the path of constant proper acceleration (not coordinate
acceleration).

> 3. And me, posing:
> t = (x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) .... (3a)
> tau = sqrt(2x/c) .... (3b)

Equation (3a) is correct (same as 1a), but equation (3b) is wrong for two
reasons. First, you again typed "c" when you meant "a". Second, it does
not represent the elapsed proper time along the path, it is the proper time
along the inertial path connecting the same two events.

Den 28.04.2022 19:17, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
> There are, in the world today, three different ideologies dealing with
> accelerated repositories.

Can you please explain what a 'repository' is?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 4/29/2022 4:30 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>
> Den 28.04.2022 19:17, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>
>> There are, in the world today, three different ideologies dealing with
>> accelerated repositories.
>
> Can you please explain what a 'repository' is?

A word that sounded good to him when he was in a stupor.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>
> There are, in the world today, three different ideologies dealing with
> accelerated repositories.

What do you think "repository" means, Richard?

> ...
> 3. And me, taking here and there, and posing:
> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
> Tr=sqrt(2x/c)

Tr being (as it seems) the time actually displayed on the
traveller's clock it can be checked on departure and arrival.

Dependance on x only, and not t, is contradictory with
time dilation in the usual twins scenario. Hence it is
experimentally discarded.

The correct formula is (c/a)arcsinh(at/c)

> It's really fun after all.
>
> I will be accused of eating at all the racks.

Not even that. You are eating your own sh*t.

On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 14:35:02 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >
> > There are, in the world today, three different ideologies dealing with
> > accelerated repositories.
> What do you think "repository" means, Richard?
>
> > ...
> > 3. And me, taking here and there, and posing:
> > To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
> > Tr=sqrt(2x/c)
> Tr being (as it seems) the time actually displayed on the

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?

> Dependance on x only, and not t, is contradictory with
> time dilation in the usual twins scenario. Hence it is
> experimentally discarded.

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

Le 29/04/2022 à 03:55, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 10:17:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> [edited for clarity]
>> 2. The Newtonians say
>> t=sqrt(2x/c)
>
> You typed "c" instead of "a".

Yes.

Tr=sqrt(2x/a)

>> 1. Relativists say:
>> t = (x/c)sqrt(1+2c²/ax) ..... (1a)
>> tau = (c/a)arcsinh(at/c) ...... (1b)
>
> Right, (1b) comes from integrating sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path defined
> by (1a), which is the path of constant proper acceleration (not coordinate
> acceleration).
>
>> 3. And me, posing:
>> t = (x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) .... (3a)
>> tau = sqrt(2x/c) .... (3b)
>
> Equation (3a) is correct (same as 1a), but equation (3b) is wrong for two
> reasons. First, you again typed "c" when you meant "a". Second, it does
> not represent the elapsed proper time along the path, it is the proper time
> along the inertial path connecting the same two events.

That's two proper times.

No clear.

R.H.

On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 16:50:59 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:

> > Equation (3a) is correct (same as 1a), but equation (3b) is wrong for two
> > reasons. First, you again typed "c" when you meant "a". Second, it does
> > not represent the elapsed proper time along the path, it is the proper time
> > along the inertial path connecting the same two events.
> That's two proper times.

Whatever; unfortunately, what is proper for a fanatic idiot
doesn't have to be also proper for GPS or TAI staff. Too bad.

Le 29/04/2022 à 14:35, Python a écrit :

> Tr being (as it seems) the time actually displayed on the
> traveller's clock it can be checked on departure and arrival.

Exactly.

The terrestrial observer (or that of the laboratory in the case of
particles) is not in the same frame, and does not measure the same time
between the moment of departure and the moment of arrival.

This is the notion of the relativity of time.

For uniformly accelerated moving frames, the two respective durations will
not be equal.

So I'm not a "newtonian crank".

Ditto that I do not contradict the Langevin on the merits.

On the other hand on the form, yes. As much in the history of the traveler
of Langevin as in that of the traveler of Tau Ceti (which you know I do
not re-explain), I think that certain particular equations are not
correct.

>
> Dependance on x only, and not t, is contradictory with
> time dilation in the usual twins scenario. Hence it is
> experimentally discarded.
>
> The correct formula is (c/a)arcsinh(at/c)

C'est sur ça que je tique.

Tr=sqrt(x2x/a) et non (c/a)arcsinh(at/c).

Je ne dis pas que l'intégration n'est pas mathématiquement correcte. Je
dis qu'elle est sans objet.

Je suis en train de chercher un outil mathématique plus adapté pour
intégrer tous les petits ΔTr
et ΔTo. Je crois que la façon dont on procède est biaiseuse et qu'il
s'y trouve (comme je le dis toujours) un énième petit piège.

L'équation leibnizienne de départ qui intègre un temps et une vitesse,
avec la vitesse qui varie en fonction du temps de façon (en plus)
est-elle réellement adaptée à un cadre relativiste.

∫ΔTo=To : je comprends.

∫ΔTr=Tr : je comprends.

ΔTo=ΔTr.sqrt(1+Vri²/c²) : je comprends (Vri : vitesse réelle
instantanée à n.ΔTr)

C'est sur l'intégration qui suis que je bloque.

To=ΔTo=ΔTr∫sqrt(1+"Vri"²/c²)

N.B. Ce n'est pas forcément parce que je suis bête que je bloque.

R.H.

On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 17:21:37 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 29/04/2022 à 14:35, Python a écrit :
>
> > Tr being (as it seems) the time actually displayed on the
> > traveller's clock it can be checked on departure and arrival.
> Exactly.
>
> The terrestrial observer (or that of the laboratory in the case of
> particles) is not in the same frame, and does not measure the same time
> between the moment of departure and the moment of arrival.

Gedanken delusions, yes, he does.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 29/04/2022 à 14:35, Python a écrit :
>
>> Tr being (as it seems) the time actually displayed on the
>> traveller's clock it can be checked on departure and arrival.
>
> Exactly.
>
> The terrestrial observer (or that of the laboratory in the case of
> particles) is not in the same frame, and does not measure the same time
> between the moment of departure and the moment of arrival.
>
> This is the notion of the relativity of time.
>
> For uniformly accelerated moving frames, the two respective durations
> will not be equal.
>
> So I'm not a "newtonian crank".

There is no newtonian crank, all cranks so far here have issues
with Newtonian dynamics (including you).

> Ditto that I do not contradict the Langevin on the merits.
>
> On the other hand on the form, yes. As much in the history of the
> traveler of Langevin as in that of the traveler of Tau Ceti (which you
> know I do not re-explain), I think that certain particular equations are
> not correct.

This does not parse in English, Richard.

>> Dependance on x only, and not t, is contradictory with
>> time dilation in the usual twins scenario. Hence it is
>> experimentally discarded.
>>
>> The correct formula is (c/a)arcsinh(at/c)
>
> C'est sur ça que je tique.

you are wrong, 100% wrong. Think.

Le 29/04/2022 à 21:33, Python a écrit :

>>> The correct formula is (c/a)arcsinh(at/c)
>>
>> C'est sur ça que je tique.
>
> you are wrong, 100% wrong. Think.

On va voir, je suis en train de plancher là dessus, et j'ai trouvé la
manière dont il faut opérer.

J'ai apparemment l'équation correcte (merci Samuel Devulder pour son
logiciel conseillé), je dois juste vérifier certains trucs.

R.H.

On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 21:33:45 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > Le 29/04/2022 à 14:35, Python a écrit :
> >
> >> Tr being (as it seems) the time actually displayed on the
> >> traveller's clock it can be checked on departure and arrival.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > The terrestrial observer (or that of the laboratory in the case of
> > particles) is not in the same frame, and does not measure the same time
> > between the moment of departure and the moment of arrival.
> >
> > This is the notion of the relativity of time.
> >
> > For uniformly accelerated moving frames, the two respective durations
> > will not be equal.
> >
> > So I'm not a "newtonian crank".
> There is no newtonian crank, all cranks so far here have issues

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?

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 10:17:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> 3. And me, taking here and there, and posing: To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
>> Tr=sqrt(2x/c) It's really fun after all. I will be accused of eating at
>> all the racks. Good nigth. R.H.
>
> Not even wrong. Gobbledygook.

in gearmony they can put you in prison, just by denying the nazi
war_crimes of ww2. But guess what, the corrupt government are sending
military weaponry hardware to the nazi now, in "ukraine".