On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 5:48:11 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In the vision that I have of the theory of relativity as I think
> > it should be taught, I cannot do otherwise.

But your "vision" has been thoroughly debunked. Your formula for the elapsed proper time along any segment with constantly proper acceleration a=1.052 Y^-1 and speeds v1 and v2 at the start and end of the segment is

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). For the system of coordinates in which the beginning the segment is at x=3 we have v1=0.970706 and v2=0.972156 and your formula gives delta_tau = 0.039439, but if you use the coordinate system in which the trajectory is stationary at the beginning of the segment the velocities are v1=0 and v2=0.025744, in which case your formula gives delta_tau = 0.024426, which is correct! If you compute the elapsed proper times for all the other segments this way, and add them up, you get 3.14 years. Agreed?

Le 18/10/2022 à 15:27, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 5:48:11 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> But your "vision" has been thoroughly debunked.

I find you very optimistic.

R.H.

On Tuesday, 18 October 2022 at 15:27:16 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 5:48:11 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > In the vision that I have of the theory of relativity as I think
> > > it should be taught, I cannot do otherwise.
> But your "vision" has been thoroughly debunked.

So was yours. Real clocks of the real world
keep obeying common sense, this collection
of prejudices.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > But your "vision" has been thoroughly debunked.
>
> [Snip and ignore the debunking.] I find you very optimistic. [And now I run away... again.]

The conclusion doesn't rely on optimism or pessimism, it is just a statement of fact: When your formula is applied correctly, it gives the total elapsed time of 3.14 years. Your problem was that you were applying your formula in a logically inconsistent way, as explained in the previous message. It's good that you aren't even trying to dispute this.

Le 18/10/2022 à 18:04, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > But your "vision" has been thoroughly debunked.
>>
>> [Snip and ignore the debunking.] I find you very optimistic. [And now I run
>> away... again.]
>
> The conclusion doesn't rely on optimism or pessimism, it is just a statement of
> fact: When your formula is applied correctly, it gives the total elapsed time of
> 3.14 years. Your problem was that you were applying your formula in a logically
> inconsistent way, as explained in the previous message. It's good that you aren't
> even trying to dispute this.

Stan, I agree that you are a very intelligent and well-educated
personality.

But sometimes, I find you too optimistic when I see you defending
geometric concepts that I find lame.

R.H.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 10:21:09 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > When your formula is applied correctly, it gives the total elapsed time of
> > 3.14 years. Your problem was that you were applying your formula in a logically
> > inconsistent way, as explained in the previous message.
>
> I find you too optimistic when I see you defending geometric concepts...

There are no controversial "geometric concepts" in the explanation you've been given. Again, your formula gives a result that depends on what system of coordinates you are using, which proves that your formula is not, in general, the elapsed proper time, because the elapsed proper time is unique, independent of coordinate system.

Your formula asymptotically approaches (for sufficiently short segments) the correct result when it is applied in terms of the coordinate system in which the segment begins at rest. When you apply your formula in this way, and add the results for each segment, it gives a total elapsed proper time for the journey of 3.14 years.

So, since you admit that you cannot dispute this, you are tacitly agreeing that all your beliefs have been debunked.

Richard Hachel wrote:

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

sure. Here's a couple of khazars lying and shaking hands. They blow up own
gas pipelines, with pumped gas in it, then they shamelessly accusing
Russia, delivering that cheap gas. Amazing the impertinence of these
"western" lying khazars. I bet the Putina knows they are khazar emigrants.

Blinken Calls Sabotage Attacks On Nord Stream Pipelines A ＂Tremendous
Opportunity＂https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/2zAEJbermMOC

Body Language - Blinken, Nord Stream 1 and 2 Investigation And Accusations
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/4HEqyJ1KbxLN

New Norway-Poland Baltic Pipeline ＊thinking＊
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/7idY8FBj0GVj

Feb.7-2022 - President Biden on Nord Stream if Russia Invades Ukraine： ＂We
will bring an end to it.＂
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/yafNzJxIuL4x

terrorism Nord Stream 2 Sabotaged by America？ ｜ Tucker Carlson
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/5JqNdUBJcIkj

Brother Nathanael： Stream Sabotage Revealed! - [29⧸09⧸2022]
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/Jj0P6Y2NPTKG

Poland ex-FM implies Nord Stream pipelines sabotaged
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/RVzOVwZ7zlpg

Zelensky Laughs His Butt off While His People Are Dying Amid the Brink of
Nuclear War https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/hJupOnQ5fMnH

Ukrainian Nazi ＂Right Sector＂ parade in the town of Kolomyia
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/d6kmoRO71l13

On 10/18/2022 1:21 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/10/2022 à 18:04, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> > But your "vision" has been thoroughly debunked.
>>>
>>> [Snip and ignore the debunking.]  I find you very optimistic. [And
>>> now I run away... again.]
>>
>> The conclusion doesn't rely on optimism or pessimism, it is just a
>> statement of fact:  When your formula is applied correctly, it gives
>> the total elapsed time of 3.14 years.  Your problem was that you were
>> applying your formula in a logically inconsistent way, as explained in
>> the previous message.  It's good that you aren't even trying to
>> dispute this.
>
> Stan, I agree that you are a very intelligent and well-educated
> personality.
>
> But sometimes, I find you too optimistic when I see you defending
> geometric concepts that I find lame.
>
> R.H.

"Optimistic" and "lame" have no part in proving or disproving anything
in math and physics. Richard, if you can find anything mathematically
wrong in Stan's math, show it. Otherwise accept it. "I don't like it" or
"it's lame" are not valid reasons.

Le 18/10/2022 à 23:30, Volney a écrit :
> On 10/18/2022 1:21 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 18/10/2022 à 18:04, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> "Optimistic" and "lame" have no part in proving or disproving anything
> in math and physics. Richard, if you can find anything mathematically
> wrong in Stan's math, show it. Otherwise accept it. "I don't like it" or
> "it's lame" are not valid reasons.
The problem is not there.

I can't show that Stan's calculations are wrong, nor him that mine are
wrong.

However, we each have very different answers (for example Tr=4.776 or
Tr=3.139)
in the Tau Ceti problem.

It is obviously a colossal difference.

It's the same if you ask Stan how far away the earth is, when the twin
du Langevin has just completed his return, and that his speed towards the
earth is 0.8c.
Stan will apply the contraction of the distances, and his calculation will
be correct, he will find 7.2 ly; for my part I would apply the notion of
elasticity of distances and my calculation will be just as good as his,
but I will find 36 ly!

The problem between him and me, between physicists and me, is that we
don't use the same space-time. They use a four-dimensional Minkowski
space-time which does not exist.

The universe is not made like that.

So the calculations they make are correct, but for their own universe;
and mine are correct for my universe.

This is not a question of mathematics, but of physics.

I will then be asked the question: "Well, we admit that we are wrong, and
that it is you,
Richard Hachel, who is right about everything. But tell us then where our
error comes from?

I told you:
There are laws and principles in the universe.
Like the law of gravity.
There is a principle that relativists have understood very well, that of
the relativity of chronotropy. Two clocks moving in the universe beat each
other faster than the other clock they are watching. The equation is
perfectly given either: To=Tr/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

But this is not enough.

There is also the notion of anisochrony to understand and integrate into
the equation.

Equation which will become t=t'(1+cosφ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

I don't understand what turns them off.

Ditto for the contractions of distances, their ideology is incomplete.

There is not a simple contraction of type d=d'.sqrt(1-v²/c²) but an
elasticity of type
d=d'.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosφ.v/c)

This is all a problem of physical concept.

NO math.

The problem between Stan and me is that we are not talking about the same
universe.

I speak myself, of real and concrete things.

He talks to him about the universe of Minkowski which he imagines well,
but which does not exist. Its mathematical universe is correct, but it is
a physical chimera.

Do you see the difference?

R.H.
----------------------------------------
Traduction in french.

Le problème n'est pas là.

Je ne peux pas montrer que les calculs de Stan sont faux, ni lui que les
miens sont faux.

Pourtant, nous avons chacun des réponses très différentes (par exemple
Tr=4.776 ou Tr=3.139)
dans le problème du Tau Ceti.

C'est évidement une différence colossale.

C'est la même chose si tu demandes à Stan à quelle distance se trouve
la terre, lorsque le jumeau
du Langevin vient juste de terminer son retour, et que sa vitesse vers la
terre est de 0.8c.
Stan va appliquer la contraction des distances, et son calcul sera bon, il
trouvera 7.2 ly ; de mon côté j'appliquerais la notion d'élasticité
des distances et mon calcul sera tout aussi bon que le sien, mais je
trouverai 36 ly!

Le problème, entre lui et moi, entre les physiciens et moi, c'est que
nous n'utilisons pas le même espace-temps. Ils utilisent un espace temps
de Minkowski à quatre dimension qui n'existe pas.

L'univers n'est pas fait comme ça.

Alors les calcul qu'ils font sont correct, mais pour leur univers à eux
; et les miens sont corrects pour mon univers à moi.

Ce n'est pas une question de mathématique, mais de physique.

On va alors me poser la question : "Bon, nous admettons, nous, que nous
nous trompons, et que c'est toi,
Richard Hachel, qui a raison sur tout. Mais dis-nous alors d'où vient
notre erreur?"

Je vous l'ai dit:
Il y a des lois et des principes dans l'univers.
Comme la loi de la gravitation.
Il existe un principe que les relativistes ont fort bien compris, celui
de la relativité de la chronotropie. Deux horloges qui se déplacent dans
l'univers battent réciproquement plus vite que l'autre montre qu'ils
observent. L'équation en est parfaitement donnée soit :
To=Tr/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

Mais cela ne suffit pas.

Il y a aussi la notion d'anisochronie à bien comprendre et à intégrer
dans l'équation.

Equation qui va devenir t=t'(1+cosφ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Je ne comprends pas ce qui les rebute.

Idem pour les contractions de distances, leur idéologie est incomplète.

Il n'y a pas une simple contraction de type d=d'.sqrt(1-v²/c²) mais une
élasticité de type
d=d'.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosφ.v/c)

Tout cela est un problème de concept physique.

PAS de mathématique.

Le problème, entre Stan et moi, c'est que nous ne parlons pas du même
univers.

Je parle moi, de choses réelles et concrètes.

Il parle lui de l'univers de Minkowski qu'il imagine bien, mais qui
n'existe pas. Son univers mathématique est correct, mais c'est une
chimère physique.

Tu vois la différence?

R.H.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 4:27:07 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> I can't show that Stan's calculations are wrong...

That is true.

> nor him that mine are wrong.

That is false. Your formula gives logically self-contradictory results, depending on which system of coordinates you choose. That is absurd, because the elapsed proper time for a given segment is unique, not dependent on the system of coordinates. I've also shown how to apply your formula to get the correct, logically consistent and unique result. You run away.

So, all your beliefs have been conclusively debunked. Agreed?

Le 19/10/2022 à 01:47, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 4:27:07 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> I can't show that Stan's calculations are wrong...
>
> That is true.
>
>> nor him that mine are wrong.
>
> That is false. Your formula gives logically self-contradictory results,
> depending on which system of coordinates you choose. That is absurd, because the
> elapsed proper time for a given segment is unique, not dependent on the system of
> coordinates. I've also shown how to apply your formula to get the correct,
> logically consistent and unique result. You run away.
>
> So, all your beliefs have been conclusively debunked. Agreed?

Stan, be athletic.

Don't tell lies.

Do you think me crazy enough to come up with a whole series of proper
times for a single object?

It's stupid.

R.H.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7:27:07 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

> I can't show that Stan's calculations are wrong,

True.

> nor him that mine are wrong.

A lie. He has shown that your is wrong.

> However, we each have very different answers (for example Tr=4.776 or
> Tr=3.139) in the Tau Ceti problem.
>
> It is obviously a colossal difference.

Indeed.

So how to verify who is right? Well, do the experiment.
Well, it has been done, numerous times. And the answer was always the "3.139".
That is, as the traveler arrived 'over there', its watch indicated 3.139.
So, you are wrong, and SR's prediction was/is correct.
Are you saying that you are a reality denier?

> This is not a question of mathematics, but of physics.

And physics is about predicting the values displayed by the instruments.

> The problem between Stan and me is that we are not talking about the same
> universe.

Indeed. He/physics is discussing about what actual devices display; about measurements.

> I speak myself, of real and concrete things.

No you do not. You might think you do, but all of us here know that you are not.
So its about time you do a little introspection...

> Traduction in french.

There is no need for that. Stop wasting resources.

Le 19/10/2022 à 02:57, rotchm a écrit :

> Are you saying that you are a reality denier?

Obviously not.

R.H.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 9:08:20 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/10/2022 à 02:57, rotchm a écrit :
>
> > Are you saying that you are a reality denier?
> Obviously not.

Then why don't you believe in the results of actual experiments?
You are aware that the actual result measured was 3.139 right?

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 4:51:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> I can't show that Stan's calculations are wrong...
> >
> > That is true.
> >
> >> nor him that mine are wrong.
> >
> > That is false. Your formula gives logically self-contradictory results,
> > depending on which system of coordinates you choose. That is absurd, because the
> > elapsed proper time for a given segment is unique, not dependent on the system of
> > coordinates. I've also shown how to apply your formula to get the correct,
> > logically consistent and unique result. You run away.
> >
> > So, all your beliefs have been conclusively debunked. Agreed?
>
> Do you think me crazy enough to come up with a whole series of proper
> times for a single object?

Yes, and I have proven it, by using your formula in terms of different coordinate systems to compute different elapsed proper times for a given segment, depending on which system of coordinates is used. See the previous messages. This proves that your formula does not yield elapsed proper time, which is unique, independent of coordinate system.

> It's stupid.

Yes, your formula is extremely stupid, as are all your claims. If you disagree, go ahead and respond to the disproof of your claims. But you never do, you just run away.

Le 19/10/2022 à 02:57, rotchm a écrit :

>> This is not a question of mathematics, but of physics.
>
> And physics is about predicting the values displayed by the instruments.

That is what I am saying.

But strange thing, it is the theory which sometimes takes precedence over
the experiment.

When the theory is nonsense like the current theory of relativity is
without the corrections I made.

I don't need the experience to know that.

For example, the current theory foresees, in the Langevin, a contraction
of the distances of 7.2 ly.

Except that it is absurd in apparent speed, and that there is rather an
enormous dilation of the distance, and that there is no need, when one
completely masters the subject, to show it, because it is the only
solution that is not absurd. D=36ly : Phenomenal space-zoom.

It is even necessary to affirm that one must be careful, and that the
examiner may have been mistaken.

It happened to me when the Italians discovered a superluminal particle.

I immediately asserted that they were wrong, because it is absurd.

It's not that it's physically or technologically impossible, it's that
it's absurd.

A few weeks later, the truth came out: the experimenters were wrong.

R.H.

Le 19/10/2022 à 03:17, rotchm a écrit :
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 9:08:20 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 19/10/2022 à 02:57, rotchm a écrit :
>>
>> > Are you saying that you are a reality denier?
>> Obviously not.
>
>
> Then why don't you believe in the results of actual experiments?
> You are aware that the actual result measured was 3.139 right?

Vous plaisantez?

Vous étiez le capitaine de la fusée qui est revenue de Tau Ceti dimanche
dernier?

R.H.

Le 19/10/2022 à 03:18, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 4:51:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> >> I can't show that Stan's calculations are wrong...
>> >
>> > That is true.
>> >
>> >> nor him that mine are wrong.
>> >
>> > That is false. Your formula gives logically self-contradictory results,
>> > depending on which system of coordinates you choose. That is absurd, because
>> the
>> > elapsed proper time for a given segment is unique, not dependent on the system
>> of
>> > coordinates. I've also shown how to apply your formula to get the correct,
>> > logically consistent and unique result. You run away.
>> >
>> > So, all your beliefs have been conclusively debunked. Agreed?
>>
>> Do you think me crazy enough to come up with a whole series of proper
>> times for a single object?
>
> Yes, and I have proven it, by using your formula in terms of different
> coordinate systems to compute different elapsed proper times for a given segment,
> depending on which system of coordinates is used. See the previous messages.
> This proves that your formula does not yield elapsed proper time, which is unique,
> independent of coordinate system.
>
>> It's stupid.
>
> Yes, your formula is extremely stupid, as are all your claims. If you disagree,
> go ahead and respond to the disproof of your claims. But you never do, you just
> run away.

Stan, honey, you're talking nonsense.

We cannot find several different proper times for a rocket that makes a
well-defined course.

If you find several proper times, your calculation is wrong, or you added
a carrot and a turnip.

Where do you find that there can be two proper times for a rocket that
makes a course?

R.H.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 9:23:28 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/10/2022 à 03:17, rotchm a écrit :

> Vous plaisantez?
>
> Vous étiez le capitaine de la fusée qui est revenue de Tau Ceti dimanche
> dernier?

In English?

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 9:27:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/10/2022 à 03:18, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> Stan, honey, you're talking nonsense.
>
> We cannot find several different proper times for a rocket that makes a
> well-defined course.

Correct. However, your 'theory' your calculations do give different proper times.
We all see this, except for you.

> If you find several proper times, your calculation is wrong, or you added
> a carrot and a turnip.

He showed you how your calculations give different proper times.
Nowhere did you debunked him. You only ran away.
This indicates that you realize that your theory is crackpot.
Now the only thing for you to do is to be honest and admit to it.

> Where do you find that there can be two proper times for a rocket that
> makes a course?

<sigh> he showed you that many times.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 6:27:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Where do you find that [my formula gives] two proper times for a rocket that
> makes a course?

Remember, in terms of the original coordinate system, for a segment with constant proper acceleration a=1.052 and speeds ranging from v1=0.970706 to v2=0.972156, your formula gives the quantity 0.039439 years, but in terms of other coordinate systems, in which v1 and v2 are different, your formula gives different values for the same segment. This proves that your formula does not represent the invariant proper time along the interval.

Now, in one particular case, your formula actually gives the (asymptotically) correct answer for sufficiently small segments. This is when we choose the coordinate system in which the segment is initially at rest. For that system, we have v1=0 and v2=0.025744, and your formula gives 0.024426 years. If we do the same for all the other segments, and add them up, we get 3.14 years for the total trip.

This proves all your beliefs are false, right?

On Wednesday, 19 October 2022 at 04:07:16 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 6:27:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Where do you find that [my formula gives] two proper times for a rocket that
> > makes a course?
>
> Remember, in terms of the original coordinate system, for a segment with constant proper acceleration a=1.052 and speeds ranging from v1=0.970706 to v2=0.972156, your formula gives the quantity 0.039439 years, but in terms of other coordinate systems, in which v1 and v2 are different, your formula gives different values for the same segment. This proves that your formula does not represent the invariant proper time along the interval.
>
> Now, in one particular case, your formula actually gives the (asymptotically) correct answer for sufficiently small segments. This is when we choose the coordinate system in which the segment is initially at rest. For that system, we have v1=0 and v2=0.025744, and your formula gives 0.024426 years.

And what do you think a "year" is, poor halfbrain?
Do you have some "operational" definition?

On Tuesday, 18 October 2022 at 23:30:35 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 1:21 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 18/10/2022 à 18:04, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> >> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>> > But your "vision" has been thoroughly debunked.
> >>>
> >>> [Snip and ignore the debunking.] I find you very optimistic. [And
> >>> now I run away... again.]
> >>
> >> The conclusion doesn't rely on optimism or pessimism, it is just a
> >> statement of fact: When your formula is applied correctly, it gives
> >> the total elapsed time of 3.14 years. Your problem was that you were
> >> applying your formula in a logically inconsistent way, as explained in
> >> the previous message. It's good that you aren't even trying to
> >> dispute this.
> >
> > Stan, I agree that you are a very intelligent and well-educated
> > personality.
> >
> > But sometimes, I find you too optimistic when I see you defending
> > geometric concepts that I find lame.
> >
> > R.H.
> "Optimistic" and "lame" have no part in proving or disproving anything
> in math and physics. Richard, if you can find anything mathematically
> wrong in Stan's math, show it. Otherwise accept it. "I don't like it" or
> "it's lame" are not valid reasons.

Speaking of math - it's always good to remind that your
idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very important
and successful part false, as it didn't want to
cooperate with his madness.

Le 19/10/2022 à 03:41, rotchm a écrit :
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 9:27:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 19/10/2022 à 03:18, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>
>> Stan, honey, you're talking nonsense.
>>
>> We cannot find several different proper times for a rocket that makes a
>> well-defined course.
>
> Correct.

Yes

> However, your 'theory' your calculations do give different proper times.

Not at all.

> We all see this, except for you.

Sure.

> crackpot

Not at all.

R.H.

R.H.

Le 19/10/2022 à 04:07, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> Remember, in terms of the original coordinate system, for a segment with
> constant proper acceleration a=1.052 and speeds ranging from v1=0.970706 to
> v2=0.972156, your formula gives the quantity 0.039439 years, but in terms of other
> coordinate systems, in which v1 and v2 are different, your formula gives different
> values for the same segment. This proves that your formula does not represent the
> invariant proper time along the interval.

The traveler problem of Tau Ceti is a very simple relativistic problem
which brings into play the relations between the proper time of an
accelerated rocket (Tr=tau) and the observable time (To=t) or terrestrial
time.

The rocket is launched on a uniformly accelerated rectilinear trajectory
from the earth.

The value of constant acceleration is defined as:
a=10m/s²=0.512ly/y²

We know that the rocket will arrive at time To=12.914 years.

We know that its real speed will then be Vr=5.02455c
(Vo=0.980c)

A dispute exists between Stan Fultoni and Riachard Hachel regarding the
proper time of the rocket.
Tr=3.139 years for one.
Tr=4.776 years for the other.

So much for the general reminder.

We now want to know what will happen in the small segment of space located
between x1=6ly and x2=6.1ly

Stan Fultoni calculated that the entry speed in this segment would be
Vo1=0.970706c
and the output speed Vo2=0.972156c

I have Vo1=0.958853c
and Vo2=0.959487c

Already there, we do not get along.

We have discussed three different issues here.

The first of Tr between 3 and 3.1 ly.

The second of Tr between 6 and 6.1 ly

The third of the Tr between 6 and 6.1ly but with a lower Galilean initial
speed.

Finally a fourth problem posed by me, and which asked what happened to a
proper time period of half an hour (1800") in the terrestrial reference
frame when the rocket was right in the middle of its journey (6al ).

Are we sure we're not mixing it all up?
>

R.H.