Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult. -- R. S. Barton

tech / sci.physics.relativity / Re: Why can we consider that...

SubjectAuthor
* Why can we consider that...Richard Hachel
`- Re: Why can we consider that...mitchr...@gmail.com

1
Why can we consider that...

<gaJ4_6Omjpww7afpdsFUNudrQxY@jntp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=98170&group=sci.physics.relativity#98170

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity fr.sci.physique
Followup: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <gaJ4_6Omjpww7afpdsFUNudrQxY@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Why can we consider that...
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,fr.sci.physique
Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: ZZ9otDy9cBugHb2SVr597Cqme7s
JNTP-ThreadID: 2n9SBg9VcNRaFI4g0hUBibhRDdQ
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=gaJ4_6Omjpww7afpdsFUNudrQxY@jntp
Supersedes: <g8lE4Uqsv0CdrV5v9tcuLceeKpo@jntp>
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 22 01:17:48 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e16986fb87298884fb9c16925d4b1f280c878dd3"; logging-data="2022-10-11T01:17:48Z/7323452"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@news2.nemoweb.net"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: r.hac...@tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
 by: Richard Hachel - Tue, 11 Oct 2022 01:17 UTC

Why can we consider that an accelerated reference frame can, in an
infinitesimal period of time, be considered as a uniform Galilean
reference frame?

Quite simply because it is a physical reality.

And the problem is not there.

The problem comes from the fact that the two equations proposed (that of
the physicists and that of Dr. Hachel) both tend towards
ΔTo=ΔTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) if ΔTo and ΔTr are very small.

The relativists' equation, which Stan Fultoni and others have posted here
several times, and which leads to a proper time of 3.139 years in the Tau
Ceti traveler problem, I don't put it off, it is dramatically anyway false
(since the correct answer is 4.776 years).

Such a difference is colossal.

Let To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
and Tr=sqrt(2x/a)

It is important to speak of a very small segment of observable (improper)
time compared to a small segment of proper time ΔTr (ΔTr=Tr2-Tr1).

The correct equation is here.

It will be noted that, for very low values ​​of time (for example one
microsecond) the formula actually tends towards the equation of the
relativists.

But I don't really see the point, nor of knowing it by heart, and even
less of using it when we measure a time that is not infinitesimal, that is
to say in all concrete cases.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?gaJ4_6Omjpww7afpdsFUNudrQxY@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=gaJ4_6Omjpww7afpdsFUNudrQxY@jntp>

R.H.

Re: Why can we consider that...

<44eb8bd5-2ec9-4ce8-b13d-c777506f5ca0n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=98172&group=sci.physics.relativity#98172

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:21e6:b0:4af:a811:6c69 with SMTP id p6-20020a05621421e600b004afa8116c69mr17165958qvj.40.1665452067589;
Mon, 10 Oct 2022 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:153:b0:132:6934:1a73 with SMTP id
z19-20020a056871015300b0013269341a73mr16774560oab.258.1665452067257; Mon, 10
Oct 2022 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <gaJ4_6Omjpww7afpdsFUNudrQxY@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:1c0:c803:ab80:2d64:6486:4e72:bf0;
posting-account=Dg6LkgkAAABl5NRBT4_iFEO1VO77GchW
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:1c0:c803:ab80:2d64:6486:4e72:bf0
References: <gaJ4_6Omjpww7afpdsFUNudrQxY@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <44eb8bd5-2ec9-4ce8-b13d-c777506f5ca0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Why can we consider that...
From: mitchrae...@gmail.com (mitchr...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 01:34:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3106
 by: mitchr...@gmail.com - Tue, 11 Oct 2022 01:34 UTC

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 6:17:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Why can we consider that an accelerated reference frame can, in an
> infinitesimal period of time, be considered as a uniform Galilean
> reference frame?
>
> Quite simply because it is a physical reality.
>
> And the problem is not there.
>
> The problem comes from the fact that the two equations proposed (that of
> the physicists and that of Dr. Hachel) both tend towards
> ΔTo=ΔTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) if ΔTo and ΔTr are very small.
>
> The relativists' equation, which Stan Fultoni and others have posted here
> several times, and which leads to a proper time of 3.139 years in the Tau
> Ceti traveler problem, I don't put it off, it is dramatically anyway false
> (since the correct answer is 4.776 years).
>
> Such a difference is colossal.
>
> Let To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
> and Tr=sqrt(2x/a)
> It is important to speak of a very small segment of observable (improper)
> time compared to a small segment of proper time ΔTr (ΔTr=Tr2-Tr1).
>
> The correct equation is here.
>
> It will be noted that, for very low values ​​of time (for example one
> microsecond) the formula actually tends towards the equation of the
> relativists.
>
> But I don't really see the point, nor of knowing it by heart, and even
> less of using it when we measure a time that is not infinitesimal, that is
> to say in all concrete cases.
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?gaJ4_6Omjpww7afpdsFUNudrQxY@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=gaJ4_6Omjpww7afpdsFUNudrQxY@jntp>
>
> R.H.

To accelerate continuous you pass through every speed in between.
Increase speeds is gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor