Stan Fultoni having reflected a lot on his side on what could be the
relativistic evolution of the traveler of Tau Ceti, and the questions
having accumulated, it is necessary to put all this in order, so that the
reader who would come to find himself on this group can understand what it
is about.

The traveler of Tau Ceti is an astronaut who starts from the earth with a
uniformly accelerated movement of 10 meters-second per second.

This speed is specially chosen to give maximum comfort to the inhabitants
of the rocket.

We know that the star Tau Ceti is 12 light years from earth.

A quick calculation according to the formula given by relativistic
physicists shows us that the travel time, measured in the terrestrial
reference frame, will be 12,914 years.

The formula is now, I think, accepted by everyone.
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

Of course, this is not what a terrestrial observer will observe in his
telescope.
We must not forget the longitudinal light lure, and more precisely the
notion of spatial anisochrony.

The observer will apprehend a journey of 24,914 years, and this is the
time he will have to wait to have the first direct-live images of the Tau
Ceti system.

This is widely accepted by all.

The problem today, between Stan Fultoni and Richard Hachel, in this
relativistic problem, is that of the proper time of travel. That is to say
the relative time (since time is relative) measured by the travelers
themselves.

Stan proposes 3,139 years, which seems extremely low to me.

I suggest 4,776 years.

Stan Fultoni uses this complicated equation:
tau=(1/a)invsinh(at)

I simply use Tr=sqrt(2x/a)

Hence the two different results given here.

Stan then poses two problems for me:
What is for me the proper time of the rocket while it passes between x1=6
ly,
(ie halfway) and x2=6.1 ly.

Consider a small segment of 0.1 ly located over there.

The answer is easily calculated:
deltaTr=Tr2-Tr1
with Tr1=sqrt(2x/a)
Tr2=sqrt(2(x+deltax)/a)

Tr=0.028 years.

Stan then asks me another question: what happens if the rocket is only
accelerated by 5m/s² during the course, then goes to 10m/s² as soon as
it crosses x=6ly.

It goes without saying that the entry speed into the segment will be twice
as slow, and therefore identical to what it would have been with 10m/s²
of acceleration but at the point x=3 ly.

We do the same thing with the equations, and we find: Tr=0.03947 years.

There is no problem, the segment is the same, of course, but the value
found is different since this time, we move more slowly at the entrance.

Je vous souhaite une bonne nuit.

R.H.

On Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 3:06:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> You calculate what the first segment is so that the actual speed Vr is
> >> what it is.
> >
> > Again, the speed of the rocket at the start of the segment depends
> > on the system of coordinates, so you get a different answer depending on which
> > system of coordinates you are using.
>
> But I've already answered all of that.

No you haven't. Remember, your first idea was to claim the elapsed proper time is given by the Galilean formula

delta tau = sqrt(2x2/a) - sqrt(2x1/a)

with x1=3.0 and x2 = 3.1. This gives 0.039439 years. But then I pointed out that this segment could be between x1=6.0 and x2=6.1, which gives a different result, so you had to admit that your formula for delta tau is not really a function of x1 and x2, it is actually a function of v1 and v2, which are related to the fictitious x1 and x2 by xj = (gj - 1)/a where gj = 1/sqrt(1 - vj^2). So your formula is

delta tau = sqrt(2(g2 - 1))/a - sqrt(2(g1 - 1))/a

With the values of v1 and v2 in terms of this coordinate system we get 0.039439 years, but if we evaluate this in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates we get different results. This is because, although the value of a is invariant, the velocities v1 and v2 (and corresponding g1 and g2) depend on the coordinate system. In terms of a system moving at speed u, the velocities are (v1+u)/(1+v1 u) and (v2+u)/(1+v2 u). Thus if we set u=0.8, we get delta tau = 0.063418, and if we set u=-0.8 we get delta tau = 0.027663. So, your method gives drastically different elapsed times, depending on which system of coordinates you use to evaluate it. Therefore your method is obviously absurd and logically self-contradictory, since the elapsed proper time alomng a given interval is unique. So all your beliefs have been thoroughly debunked.

To anyone who understands the subject, what you are doing is quite obvious. For any segment of constant proper acceleration "a", let A and B denote the events at the start and end of the segment. Also, if we extrapolate back in time along a trajectory of constant proper acceleration "a" we arrive at an event O at which the trajectory is stationary (in terms of this system of coordinates. You are computing the difference [OA] - [OB] where [OA] signifies the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated path from O to A, and likewise [OB] signifies the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated path from O to B. You foolishly declare this difference to be the elapsed proper time along the accelerating path from A to B, which it obviously is not, and you ignore the fact that this difference isn't even invariant, it depends on the system of coordinates (which determines the location of O). Understand?

On Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 6:06:31 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> The traveler of Tau Ceti is an astronaut who starts from the earth with a
> uniformly accelerated movement of 10 meters-second per second.

OK. To be clear, do you mean that the *proper acceleration* is 10m/s² ?
And, can you state here the meaning, the *definition* of 'proper acceleration' that you are using?

> This speed is specially chosen to give maximum comfort to the inhabitants
> of the rocket.

First, that sentence is irrelevant to the problem. You could have just as easily omitted it.
Learn to write concisely, without any useless Embellishments..

And, what do you mean by 'This speed...'? You did not invoke a speed in the above.
Did you mean acceleration our trajectory?

> We know that the star Tau Ceti is 12 light years from earth.

Irrelevant to the problem. You could have simply said: Let Tau Ceti be 12 LY from earth.
Did you see how more concise and shorter that sentence is?

> A quick calculation according to the formula given by relativistic
> physicists shows us that the travel time, measured in the terrestrial
> reference frame, will be 12,914 years.

A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler arrives at Tau Ceti,
the clock there indicates 12.914 years

> The formula is now, I think, accepted by everyone.
> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

That formula is gibberish, since you did not Define all your parameters.
For that formula to make sense, you must specify what 'To' means or represents.

So, clear that up, address the questions I posed you above, and then we will take it from there. One step at a time...

Le 17/10/2022 à 00:56, rotchm a écrit :
> That formula is gibberish, since you did not Define all your parameters.
> For that formula to make sense, you must specify what 'To' means or represents.
>
> So, clear that up, address the questions I posed you above, and then we will
> take it from there. One step at a time...

I'm surprised that you ask me for an explanation of this equation.

To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

1. It is not open to criticism on the merits, since it has been accepted
by all for many decades.
2. It is not open to criticism either in the written form, which is easily
decipherable.

R.H.

On Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > That formula is gibberish, since you did not Define all your parameters..
> > For that formula to make sense, you must specify what 'To' means or represents.
> >
> I'm surprised that you ask me for an explanation of this equation.

You will always find people who are slow in deciphering your self-indulgent heiroglyphics, especially because you yourself don't employ the symbols in a logically consistent way. But you are well aware that someone here has fully deciphered you (in about 30 seconds), and has explained in detail the logical fallacy of what you are doing. So why respond to people who haven't even deciphered your messages, while ignoring the thorough debunking of your beliefs?

Remember, your first idea was to claim the elapsed proper time is given by the Galilean formula
. . . delta tau = sqrt(2x2/a) - sqrt(2x1/a)
with x1=3.0 and x2 = 3.1. This gives 0.039439 years. But then I pointed out that this segment could be between x1=6.0 and x2=6.1, which gives a different result, so you had to admit that your formula for delta tau is not really a function of x1 and x2, it is actually a function of v1 and v2, which are related to the fictitious x1 and x2 by xj = (gj - 1)/a where gj = 1/sqrt(1 - vj^2). So your formula is
. . . delta tau = sqrt(2(g2 - 1))/a - sqrt(2(g1 - 1))/a
With the values of v1 and v2 in terms of this coordinate system we get 0.039439 years, but if we evaluate this in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates we get different results. This is because, although the value of a is invariant, the velocities v1 and v2 (and corresponding g1 and g2) depend on the coordinate system. In terms of a system moving at speed u, the velocities are (v1+u)/(1+v1 u) and (v2+u)/(1+v2 u). Thus if we set u=0.8, we get delta tau = 0.063418, and if we set u=-0.8 we get delta tau = 0.027663. So, your method gives drastically different elapsed times, depending on which system of coordinates you use to evaluate it. Therefore your method is obviously absurd and logically self-contradictory, since the elapsed proper time alomng a given interval is unique. So all your beliefs have been thoroughly debunked.

To anyone who understands the subject, what you are doing is quite obvious. For any segment of constant proper acceleration "a", let A and B denote the events at the start and end of the segment. Now, if we extrapolate back in time along a trajectory of constant proper acceleration "a" we arrive at an event O at which the trajectory is stationary (in terms of this system of coordinates. You are computing the difference [OB] - [OA] where [OA] signifies the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated path from O to A, and likewise [OB] signifies the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated path from O to B. You foolishly declare this difference to be the elapsed proper time along the accelerating path from A to B, which it obviously is not, and you ignore the fact that this difference isn't even invariant, it depends on the system of coordinates (which determines the location of O). This proves that your beliefs are incoherent and self-contradictory.

On Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 7:42:18 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 17/10/2022 à 00:56, rotchm a écrit :
> > That formula is gibberish, since you did not Define all your parameters..
> > For that formula to make sense, you must specify what 'To' means or represents.
> >
> > So, clear that up, address the questions I posed you above, and then we will
> > take it from there. One step at a time...
> I'm surprised that you ask me for an explanation of this equation.
>
> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
>
> 1. It is not open to criticism on the merits, since it has been accepted
> by all for many decades.
> 2. It is not open to criticism either in the written form, which is easily
> decipherable.

Isn't your goal to show or explain people your "work" or "theory"?
In that case, do it: explain your notations. What is your 'To'?

And you forgot to answer the previous questions.
Again, don't be afraid to answer them, since our goal here is to understand each other better so that we may understand your theory.

OK. To be clear, do you mean that the *proper acceleration* is 10m/s² ?
And, can you state here the meaning, the *definition* of 'proper acceleration' that you are using?
No answers?

And, what do you mean by 'This speed...'? You did not invoke a speed in the above.
Did you mean acceleration our trajectory?
No answers?

On Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 3:06:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> It goes without saying that the entry speed into the segment will be twice
> as slow, and therefore identical to what it would have been with 10m/s²
> of acceleration but at the point x=3 ly.

Right, and this exposes the fact that your equation isn't actually

.. . . delta tau = sqrt(2x2/a) - sqrt(2x1/a)

it is instead

.. . . delta tau = sqrt(2(g2 - 1))/a - sqrt(2(g1 - 1))/a

where g1 = 1/sqrt(1-v1^2) and g2 = 1/sqrt(1-v2^2). The speeds v1 and v2 are the speeds at the start and end of the segment. In the example under discussion this gives 0.039439 years, but if we evaluate this in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates we get different results. For example, in terms of a coordinates system moving at 0.8c we get delta_tau = 0.063418, and in terms of a coordinate system moving at -0.8c we get delta_tau = 0.027663.

So, your method gives drastically different elapsed times, depending on which system of coordinates you use to evaluate it. Therefore your method is obviously absurd and logically self-contradictory, since the elapsed proper time along a given interval is unique. So all your claims have been thoroughly debunked.

On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler arrives at Tau Ceti,
> the clock there indicates 12.914 years

In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>
>> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler
>> arrives at Tau Ceti,
>> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
>
> In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
again is convincing anyone?
--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 09:54:06 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>
> > On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >
> >> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler
> >> arrives at Tau Ceti,
> >> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
> >
> > In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> > by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> > t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
> 515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
> the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> again is convincing anyone?

A nonsense, you say? Words are cheap. So, are GPS satellite
clocks proper/promoted or improper/forbidden ones according
to the teachings of your idiot guru?

I'm just a humble servant of truth. I'll repeat it over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over no
matter whether it's convincing to anyone of your bunch
of idiots or not.

On 2022-10-17 08:03:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 09:54:06 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>>
>>> On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>>>
>>>> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler
>>>> arrives at Tau Ceti,
>>>> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
>>>
>>> In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
>>> by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
>>> t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
>> 515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
>> the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
>> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>> again is convincing anyone?
>
> A nonsense, you say? Words are cheap. So, are GPS satellite
> clocks proper/promoted or improper/forbidden ones according
> to the teachings of your idiot guru?
>
> I'm just a humble servant of truth. I'll repeat it over and over
> and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over no
> matter whether it's convincing to anyone of your bunch
> of idiots or not.

Yes, but who are you trying to reach? The physicists aren't impressed,
and your fellow crackpots have their other reasons for their
crackpottery.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 11:06:38 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-10-17 08:03:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>
> > On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 09:54:06 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler
> >>>> arrives at Tau Ceti,
> >>>> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> >>> by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> >>> t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
> >> 515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
> >> the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
> >> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> >> again is convincing anyone?
> >
> > A nonsense, you say? Words are cheap. So, are GPS satellite
> > clocks proper/promoted or improper/forbidden ones according
> > to the teachings of your idiot guru?
> >
> > I'm just a humble servant of truth. I'll repeat it over and over
> > and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> > over and over and over and over and over and over no
> > matter whether it's convincing to anyone of your bunch
> > of idiots or not.
> Yes, but who are you trying to reach?

And what are you trying to reach applauding
The Shit and your idiot guru here? What are your
fellow cultists trying?
You're trained for repeating something, so I am.

So, are GPS satellite clocks proper/promoted
or improper/forbidden ones according
to the teachings of your idiot guru? No
answer? Of course.

On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 3:54:06 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> > In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> > by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> > t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
> 515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
> the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> again is convincing anyone?

Just report him as spam. I do...

On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 12:49:41 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 3:54:06 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>
> > > In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> > > by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> > > t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
> > 515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
> > the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
> > over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> > again is convincing anyone?
> Just report him as spam. I do...

:)
And what are you trying to reach this way, poor halfbrain?

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>
> > On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >
> >> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler
> >> arrives at Tau Ceti,
> >> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
> >
> > In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> > by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> > t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
>
> 515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
> the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> again is convincing anyone?

And after all those repetitions he is still clueless
about what TAI is.
I have explained it several times,
but it is hopeless,

Jan

On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 12:59:39 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
> > On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
> >
> > > On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> > >
> > >> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler
> > >> arrives at Tau Ceti,
> > >> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
> > >
> > > In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> > > by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> > > t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
> >
> > 515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
> > the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
> > over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> > again is convincing anyone?
> And after all those repetitions he is still clueless
> about what TAI is.
> I have explained it several times,
> but it
changes nothing. Whatever TAI is, it's measuring t'=t
in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

Le 17/10/2022 à 09:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>
>> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler arrives at Tau
>> Ceti,
>> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
>
> In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

Please Maciej, does not spam.

It's already hard enough to discuss properly.

R.H.

Le 17/10/2022 à 01:59, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> You will always find people who are slow in deciphering your self-indulgent
> heiroglyphics, especially because you yourself don't employ the symbols in a
> logically consistent way. But you are well aware that someone here has fully
> deciphered you (in about 30 seconds), and has explained in detail the logical
> fallacy of what you are doing. So why respond to people who haven't even
> deciphered your messages, while ignoring the thorough debunking of your beliefs?
>
> Remember, your first idea was to claim the elapsed proper time is given by the
> Galilean formula
> . . . delta tau = sqrt(2x2/a) - sqrt(2x1/a)
> with x1=3.0 and x2 = 3.1. This gives 0.039439 years.

Absolutly.

>But then I pointed out that this segment could be between x1=6.0 and x2=6.1,
>which gives a different result,

Absolutly. It is not the same speeds. Tr is différent here and there.

R.H.

Le 17/10/2022 à 01:59, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> To anyone who understands the subject, what you are doing is quite obvious. For
> any segment of constant proper acceleration "a", let A and B denote the events at
> the start and end of the segment.

Yes.

> Now, if we extrapolate back in time along a trajectory of constant proper
> acceleration "a" we arrive at an event O at which the trajectory is stationary (in
> terms of this system of coordinates. You are computing the difference [OB] - [OA]
> where [OA] signifies the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated path from O to
> A, and likewise [OB] signifies the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated path
> from O to B. You foolishly declare this difference to be the elapsed proper time
> along the accelerating path from A to B, which it obviously is not, and you ignore
> the fact that this difference isn't even invariant, it depends on the system of
> coordinates (which determines the location of O). This proves that your beliefs
> are incoherent and self-contradictory.

I don't understand your explanations.

The things I say are very clear.

What is it that you don't understand?

I pose the equation Tr=tau=proper time=real time=sqrt(2AB/a)

I then put a point O anywhere between A and B, and I want to know what the
proper times Tr1 (AO) and Tr2 (OB) will be.

It's totally clear, isn't it?

With, of course, ultimately, Tr=Tr1+Tr2

So I have :
Tr=sqrt(2AB/a)
Tr1=sqrt(2AO/a)

Tr2=Tr-Tr1=sqrt(2AB/a)-sqrt(2AO/a)

It's as simple as a college question.

What don't you understand?

R.H.

On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 13:39:47 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 17/10/2022 à 09:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >
> >> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler arrives at Tau
> >> Ceti,
> >> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
> >
> > In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> > by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> > t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
> Please Maciej, does not spam.

I refuse.

On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 4:58:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > To anyone who understands the subject, what you are doing is quite obvious. For
> > any segment of constant proper acceleration "a", let A and B denote the events at
> > the start and end of the segment.
> >
> > Now, if we extrapolate back in time along a trajectory of constant proper
> > acceleration "a" we arrive at an event O at which the trajectory is stationary (in
> > terms of this system of coordinates. You are computing the difference [OB] - [OA]
> > where [OA] signifies the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated path from O to
> > A, and likewise [OB] signifies the elapsed proper time along an unaccelerated path
> > from O to B. You foolishly declare this difference to be the elapsed proper time
> > along the accelerating path from A to B, which it obviously is not, and you ignore
> > the fact that this difference isn't even invariant, it depends on the system of
> > coordinates (which determines the location of O). This proves that your beliefs
> > are incoherent and self-contradictory.
>
> I don't understand your explanations.

Again, with the x1=6 example we have shown -- and you have admitted -- that your equation isn't actually

.. . . delta_tau = sqrt(2x2/a) - sqrt(2x1/a)

it is instead

.. . . delta_tau = sqrt(2(g2 - 1))/a - sqrt(2(g1 - 1))/a

where g1 = 1/sqrt(1-v1^2) and g2 = 1/sqrt(1-v2^2). The speeds v1 and v2 are the speeds at the start and end of the segment. In your example, with your chosen system of coordinates, this gives 0.039439 years, but if you evaluate this in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates you get a different result. For example, in terms of a coordinates system moving at 0..8c your formula gives delta_tau = 0.063418, and in terms of a coordinate system moving at -0.8c your formula gives delta_tau = 0.027663.

So, your formula gives drastically different elapsed proper times for this segment, depending on which system of coordinates you arbitrarily choose, which is obviously absurd, because the elapsed proper time along a given interval must be unique, regardless of your system of coordinates. So all your claims are incoherent and have been thoroughly debunked.

On 10/17/2022 6:59 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>>
>>> On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
>>>
>>>> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler
>>>> arrives at Tau Ceti,
>>>> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
>>>
>>> In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
>>> by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
>>> t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
>>
>> 515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
>> the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
>> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>> again is convincing anyone?
>
> And after all those repetitions he is still clueless
> about what TAI is.
> I have explained it several times,
> but it is hopeless,
>
It is hopeless. I've also explained it many times and he remains
clueless. He may be using his own definitions (like Richard Hachel)
since he once told me I should be using T instead of t'.

On Tuesday, 18 October 2022 at 01:03:28 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 6:59 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-10-17 07:35:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, 17 October 2022 at 00:56:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A quick calculation according to SR shows us that as the traveler
> >>>> arrives at Tau Ceti,
> >>>> the clock there indicates 12.914 years
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> >>> by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> >>> t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
> >>
> >> 515, but this is getting boring. Do you really believe that repeating
> >> the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and
> >> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> >> again is convincing anyone?
> >
> > And after all those repetitions he is still clueless
> > about what TAI is.
> > I have explained it several times,
> > but it is hopeless,
> >
> It is hopeless. I've also explained it many times and he remains
> clueless. He may be using his own definitions (like Richard Hachel)
> since he once told me I should be using T instead of t'.

A lie, of course, as expected from relativistic
scum, and what I was telling you was that you
were mistaking T and t. And you were.

Le 18/10/2022 à 01:03, Volney a écrit :

> It is hopeless. I've also explained it many times and he remains
> clueless. He may be using his own definitions (like Richard Hachel)
> since he once told me I should be using T instead of t'.

It is not out of madness, or boastfulness, that I sometimes use new
values.

If it wasn't necessary, I wouldn't.

When I write novels, theological texts, or scientific texts, I write with
the same letters as the others.

You could even say that I am more of a literary and scientific
ultra-Orthodox.

Simply, in the vision that I have of the theory of relativity as I think
it should be taught, I cannot do otherwise.

I repeat, it does not amuse me, and it is not out of bravado.

"On ne met pas le nouveau vin dans de vieilles outres,
sinon les outres éclatent, et le vin est perdu".

R.H.

On Tuesday, 18 October 2022 at 12:01:04 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/10/2022 à 01:03, Volney a écrit :
>
> > It is hopeless. I've also explained it many times and he remains
> > clueless. He may be using his own definitions (like Richard Hachel)
> > since he once told me I should be using T instead of t'.
> It is not out of madness, or boastfulness, that I sometimes use new
> values.
>
> If it wasn't necessary, I wouldn't.
>
> When I write novels, theological texts, or scientific texts, I write with
> the same letters as the others.
>
> You could even say that I am more of a literary and scientific
> ultra-Orthodox.
>
> Simply, in the vision that I have of the theory of relativity as I think
> it should be taught, I cannot do otherwise.

So your opponents do; and while you have your
visions - forbidden by your bunch of idiots
GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in
forbidden by your bunch of idiots old
seconds.