On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 01:23, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> > Okay, let's take small steps: You agree that the rocket's trajectory is t =
> > sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), and this means that at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504, and at x2=3.1
> > we have t2=3.937453. Now, in terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of
> > the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. This is what
> > "velocity in terms of these coordinates" means, i.e., the change in spatial
> > position for a given change in time. Agreed?

No answer?

> Vous lisez les réponses que l'on vous fait?

Off topic. Wrong language.
Answer his above question. Or, are you admitting that you do not comprehend the
concept of average speed and that you cannot do basic algebra?

Le 21/10/2022 à 01:46, rotchm a écrit :
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 21/10/2022 à 01:23, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>
>> > Okay, let's take small steps: You agree that the rocket's trajectory is t =
>> > sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), and this means that at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504, and at
>> x2=3.1
>> > we have t2=3.937453. Now, in terms of these coordinates, the average velocity
>> of
>> > the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. This is what
>> > "velocity in terms of these coordinates" means, i.e., the change in spatial
>> > position for a given change in time. Agreed?
>
>
> No answer?

Today 13h24 on this forum.

R.H.

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 4:31:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Vous lisez les réponses que l'on vous fait?

I do, but you never answer, you just run away... as you are doing now. Again:

If a rocket's trajectory is t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the average velocity of the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356.

Do you deny this?

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 5:02:54 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> > Okay, let's take small steps: You agree that the rocket's trajectory is t =
> >> > sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), and this means that at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504, and at
> >> > x2=3.1 we have t2=3.937453. Now, in terms of these coordinates, the
> >> > average velocity of the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356.
> >> > Agreed?
> >
> > No answer?
>
> Today 13h24 on this forum.

No, your internet connection must be faulty. You did not post any reply to that message, other than to ask if I read your replies.
Try posting an actual answer.

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 8:02:54 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 01:46, rotchm a écrit :
> > On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 21/10/2022 à 01:23, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> >

> >> > the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. This is what
> >> > "velocity in terms of these coordinates" means, i.e., the change in spatial
> >> > position for a given change in time. Agreed?
> >
> >
> > No answer?
> Today 13h24 on this forum.

A lie. Can you support your claim by quoting what you said?
Nowhere there in that post you agreed to (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356.

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 8:25:56 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 5:02:54 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >> > Okay, let's take small steps: You agree that the rocket's trajectory is t =
> > >> > sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), and this means that at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504, and at
> > >> > x2=3.1 we have t2=3.937453. Now, in terms of these coordinates, the
> > >> > average velocity of the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356.
> > >> > Agreed?
> > >
> > > No answer?
> >
> > Today 13h24 on this forum.
> No, your internet connection must be faulty. You did not post any reply to that message, other than to ask if I read your replies.
> Try posting an actual answer.

He obviously realizes his errors and that he is cornered.
He is just unable to admit it; another of his weaknesses... So as you said, he just runs away.

Le 21/10/2022 à 02:21, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 4:31:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Vous lisez les réponses que l'on vous fait?
>
> I do, but you never answer, you just run away... as you are doing now. Again:
>
> If a rocket's trajectory is t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have
> t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the
> average velocity of the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) =
> 0.971356.
>
> Do you deny this?

This is perhaps the secret of the pot of roses.

"the average velocity of the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 -
t1) = 0.971356."

There might be something wrong there.

Although it seems "obvious" that Vo=x/To

I'll try to pinpoint what's wrong.

For To, this is what we apparently find.

For x, it seems logical (a priori) that it is 0.1ly that must be
considered.

One thing is important to note, we are only a quarter of the distance to
cover, and the observable speed that you propose seems enormous to me
Vo=0.971375c,
let Vr=1.386885c

Note that Vrf(final)=5.02455c.
And so at 12/4 i.e. x=3ly, we should have Vr=2.512275
and Vo=0.9291c

I'll let you think about that for yourself.

R.H.

Le 21/10/2022 à 01:46, rotchm a écrit :
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 21/10/2022 à 01:23, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>
>> > Okay, let's take small steps: You agree that the rocket's trajectory is t =
>> > sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), and this means that at x1=3.0 we have t1=3.834504, and at
>> x2=3.1
>> > we have t2=3.937453. Now, in terms of these coordinates, the average velocity
>> of
>> > the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) = 0.971356. This is what
>> > "velocity in terms of these coordinates" means, i.e., the change in spatial
>> > position for a given change in time. Agreed?
>
>
> No answer?
>
>> Vous lisez les réponses que l'on vous fait?
>
> Off topic. Wrong language.
> Answer his above question. Or, are you admitting that you do not comprehend the
> concept of average speed and that you cannot do basic algebra?

Answer done.

R.H.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 7:41:01 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 02:21, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> > On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 4:31:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Vous lisez les réponses que l'on vous fait?
> >
> > I do, but you never answer, you just run away... as you are doing now. Again:
> >
> > If a rocket's trajectory is t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have
> > t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates, the
> > average velocity of the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) =
> > 0.971356.
> >
> > Do you deny this?

No answer?

> "the average velocity of the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 -
> t1) = 0.971356."
> There might be something wrong there.

No answer?
Perhaps you do not understand the question.

Here it is slightly rephrased:
What is the definition (formula) of average speed between ?
Answer that and then we will take it from there.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:41:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > If a rocket's trajectory is t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have
> > t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates,
> > the average velocity of the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) =
> > 0.971356. Do you deny this?
>
> Although it seems "obvious" that Vo=x/To

You mis-read the question. To make it even simpler:

In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at time t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1, and the change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1, and the ratio of these changes is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?

On Friday, 21 October 2022 at 15:14:37 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:41:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > If a rocket's trajectory is t = sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a), this means at x1=3.0 we have
> > > t1=3.834504 and at x2=3.1 we have t2=3.937453. In terms of these coordinates,
> > > the average velocity of the rocket on this segment is (x2 - x1) / (t2 - t1) =
> > > 0.971356. Do you deny this?
> >
> > Although it seems "obvious" that Vo=x/To
> You mis-read the question. To make it even simpler:
>
> In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at time t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1, and the change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1, and the ratio of these changes is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?

A common sense prejudice, refuted by your bunch
of idiots with your "inflation" discovery.

Le 21/10/2022 à 15:14, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> You mis-read the question. To make it even simpler:
>
> In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at time
> t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1, and the
> change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1, and the ratio of these changes is
> (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?

That's the question I ask myself.

The theory of relativity can unveil conceptual surprises.

For example, in the Langevin, where it is said that the contraction of a
distance (Vo=0.8c; D=12ly) was clearly, absolutely, definitively and
divinely 7.2 ly.

Everyone knew it, everyone had learned it.

And then no...

D'=36 ly on departure, and 4 ly (behind) on arrival.

And the same for the return in the star-earth direction.

Bah, in the traveler of Tau Ceti there can also be amazing and
misunderstood things.

It's a great drama that human arrogance, which believes that it knows
everything, and especially that the opponent is only an idiot who has
understood nothing of the theory.

Please, more quiet.

R.H.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:24:07 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 15:14, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> > You mis-read the question. To make it even simpler:
> >
> > In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at time
> > t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1, and the
> > change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1, and the ratio of these changes is
> > (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
> That's the question I ask myself.

If you need to ask yourself at then you have a severe problem, because the above is taught in physics High School. It is a very basic notion.

> The theory of relativity can unveil conceptual surprises.

The above question has nothing to do with relativity.

> For example, in the Langevin, where it is said that the contraction

Off topic. Try to focus. The question is (and has nothing to do with relativity):

In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at time t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1,

Answer?

and the change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1,

Answer?

and the ratio of these changes is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?

Answer?

Le 21/10/2022 à 17:37, rotchm a écrit :
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:24:07 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 21/10/2022 à 15:14, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>> > You mis-read the question. To make it even simpler:
>> >
>> > In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at
>> time
>> > t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1, and
>> the
>> > change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1, and the ratio of these changes
>> is
>> > (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
>> That's the question I ask myself.
>
> If you need to ask yourself at then you have a severe problem, because the above
> is taught in physics High School. It is a very basic notion.

No.

Besides, you shouldn't talk to me like that.

Your tone is arrogant.

>
>> The theory of relativity can unveil conceptual surprises.
>
> The above question has nothing to do with relativity.
>
>> For example, in the Langevin, where it is said that the contraction
>
> Off topic. Try to focus. The question is (and has nothing to do with
> relativity):
>
> In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at time
> t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1,
>
> Answer?
>
> and the change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1,
>
> Answer?
>
> and the ratio of these changes is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
>
> Answer?

YES!

I found what tinkles wrong!

IT'S To2-To1 !!!

Relativistic carrots and turnips!!!

Yeeeeeeeeees!

R.H.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 12:24:22 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 17:37, rotchm a écrit :
> > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:24:07 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 21/10/2022 à 15:14, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> > If you need to ask yourself at then you have a severe problem, because the above
> > is taught in physics High School. It is a very basic notion.
> No.

Yes. The above is taught in highschool and is a very basic notion in physics.

> Besides, you shouldn't talk to me like that.
> Your tone is arrogant.

Want a tissue?

> > In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at time
> > t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1,
> >
> > Answer?

No answer?

> > and the change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1,
> >
> > Answer?

No answer?

> > and the ratio of these changes is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
> >
> > Answer?
> YES!

To be clear now, you are admitting that average speeds is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1) , right?

> I found what tinkles wrong!
> IT'S To2-To1 !!!

There are no To1 & To2 in (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).
Are you having visual delusions?
Try again.

Le 21/10/2022 à 18:50, rotchm a écrit :

>> I found what tinkles wrong!
>> IT'S To2-To1 !!!
>
> There are no To1 & To2 in (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).

LOL.

The problem comes from the fact that you cannot subtract a carrot from a
turnip.

Now, I would like to see a little more intelligence on usenet (I haven't
had the opportunity often in thirty years).

Someone intelligent realizes that if I say this incredible thing, there
MUST be something heavy behind it.

R.H.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 1:22:50 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 18:50, rotchm a écrit :
>
> >> I found what tinkles wrong!
> >> IT'S To2-To1 !!!
> >
> > There are no To1 & To2 in (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).
> LOL.
>
> The problem comes from the fact that you cannot subtract a carrot from a
> turnip.

There are no carrots nor turnips in (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).

Are you saying you cannot subtract x1 from x2?

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 7:24:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at time
> > t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1, and the
> > change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1, and the ratio of these changes is
> > (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
>
> That's the question I ask myself.

What is your answer? Are you denying that the difference between x1 and x2 is x2-x1? Are you denying that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2-t1? Are you denying that the ratio of (x2-x1) and (t2-t1) is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?

Le 21/10/2022 à 20:15, rotchm a écrit :
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 1:22:50 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 21/10/2022 à 18:50, rotchm a écrit :
>>
>> >> I found what tinkles wrong!
>> >> IT'S To2-To1 !!!
>> >
>> > There are no To1 & To2 in (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).
>> LOL.
>>
>> The problem comes from the fact that you cannot subtract a carrot from a
>> turnip.
>
> There are no carrots nor turnips in (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).
>
> Are you saying you cannot subtract x1 from x2?

No, I'm not saying that, very excellent rotchm.

I told Stan Fultoni, one of the top contributors to this forum that there
was something wrong with this Tau Ceti traveler story.

When something very complex happens, you have to look at it under the
microscope, and Stan Fultoni had the stroke of genius to suggest taking
small baby steps.

So we took baby steps.

We have come to a crucial point, which is the equation
Vo=(x2-x1)/(To2-To1)

And there, everything sinks into the absurd (as for the apparent speeds in
the Langevin if we do not use Richard Hachel's relativity).

Where is the error, and the colossal blunder?

Vo=0.971356c?
Yes, definitely.

But more precisely?

In (x2-x1)?

NOPE.

In (To2-To1)?
Yes.
This is the colossal blunder.

The observer who measures To2 is not the same as the one who measures To1.

And there, despite an appearance of complete legitimacy, everything will
quickly descend into mathematical horror, because a carrot is subtracted
from a turnip.

This is not the way to do it.

It is first necessary to proceed with the real velocities (Vr), then to
transpose to the observable velocities (Vo).

Everything then returns to normal and in a prodigious mathematical
evidence.

x1=3
x2=3.1

To1=3.83450
To2=3.93745
ΔTo=0.10295

Tr1=2.38818
Tr2=2.42766
ΔTr=0.03948

Vr1=2.51236c
Vr2=2.55386c

Vo1=0.92910c
Vo2=0.93126c

R.H.

Le 21/10/2022 à 20:37, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 7:24:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > In terms of coordinates x,t, if an object moves from x1 at time t1 to x2 at
>> time
>> > t2, do you agree that the change in the object's x coordinate is x2-x1, and
>> the
>> > change in the object's t coordinate is t2-t1, and the ratio of these changes
>> is
>> > (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
>>
>> That's the question I ask myself.
>
> What is your answer? Are you denying that the difference between x1 and x2 is
> x2-x1? Are you denying that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2-t1?

> Are you denying that the ratio of (x2-x1) and (t2-t1) is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?

YES!

ABSOLUTLY!

I am denying!

It is false To1 is a carrot, To2 is a turnip.

v=0.971345c was much too greatest and finality absurd.

R.H.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:39:28 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 20:15, rotchm a écrit :
> > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 1:22:50 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 21/10/2022 à 18:50, rotchm a écrit :
> >>
> >> >> I found what tinkles wrong!
> >> >> IT'S To2-To1 !!!
> >> >
> >> > There are no To1 & To2 in (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> The problem comes from the fact that you cannot subtract a carrot from a
> >> turnip.
> >
> > There are no carrots nor turnips in (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).
> >
> > Are you saying you cannot subtract x1 from x2?
> No, I'm not saying that, very excellent rotchm.
>
> I told Stan Fultoni, one of the top contributors to this forum that there
> was something wrong with this Tau Ceti traveler story.
>
> When something very complex happens, you have to look at it under the
> microscope, and Stan Fultoni had the stroke of genius to suggest taking
> small baby steps.
>
> So we took baby steps.
>
> We have come to a crucial point, which is the equation
> Vo=(x2-x1)/(To2-To1)
>
> And there, everything sinks into the absurd (as for the apparent speeds in
> the Langevin if we do not use Richard Hachel's relativity).
>
> Where is the error, and the colossal blunder?
>
> Vo=0.971356c?
> Yes, definitely.
>
> But more precisely?
>
> In (x2-x1)?
>
> NOPE.
>
> In (To2-To1)?
> Yes.
> This is the colossal blunder.
>
> The observer who measures To2 is not the same as the one who measures To1..
>
> And there, despite an appearance of complete legitimacy, everything will
> quickly descend into mathematical horror, because a carrot is subtracted
> from a turnip.

That's what I predicted Richard will claim in the end.

--
Jan

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:44:04 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > What is your answer? Are you denying that the difference between x1 and
> > x2 is x2-x1? Are you denying that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2-t1?
> > Are you denying that the ratio of (x2-x1) and (t2-t1) is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)?
>
> YES!

Remember, x and t are coordinates, corresponding to the readings on a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame. The rocket begins at x=0, t=0, and then it passes through x=x1, t=t1, and then it passes through x=x2, t=t2, and so on, up to x=12, t=12.915. In terms of these coordinates, the difference between the spatial coordinates x1 and x2 is x2 - x1, and the difference between the temporal coordinates t1 and t2 is t2 - t1.

If you deny that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2 - t1, what do you think the difference between those two numbers is? For example, if t1 = 5 and t2 = 9, I say that the difference between t1 and t2 is 9-5 = 4. What do you think is the difference between 9 and 5?

Le 22/10/2022 à 00:49, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> Remember, x and t are coordinates, corresponding to the readings on a grid of
> standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame.
> The rocket begins at x=0, t=0, and then it passes through x=x1, t=t1, and then it
> passes through x=x2, t=t2, and so on, up to x=12, t=12.915. In terms of these
> coordinates, the difference between the spatial coordinates x1 and x2 is x2 - x1,
> and the difference between the temporal coordinates t1 and t2 is t2 - t1.
>
> If you deny that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2 - t1, what do you think
> the difference between those two numbers is? For example, if t1 = 5 and t2 = 9, I
> say that the difference between t1 and t2 is 9-5 = 4. What do you think is the
> difference between 9 and 5?

Now that we have understood how it works, we can solve everything.

a=1.052ly/y²

To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

Let's take the final example.

x=12 ly
To=12.915 years

The proper time is given at the same time.
To²=Tr²+Et²

Or by Tr=sqrt(2x/a)

Tr=4.776years

Relativistic calculations in an accelerated medium then become very easy.

You ask if x=5ly?

To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

To=5*sqrt(1+2/(1.052*5)

For 9ly?
To=9*sqrt(1+2/(1.052*9)

And so on...

Your little baby steps allow you to understand what you are doing, and to
give precise calculations and certain results.

Then you ca do To(9)-To(5).

But you can't write Vo=dx/[(To(9)-To(5)]

And you can write Vr=dx/[Tr(9)-Tr(5)] then Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

R.H.

R.H.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:22:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Remember, x and t are coordinates, corresponding to the readings on a grid of
> > standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame.
> > The rocket begins at x=0, t=0, and then it passes through x=x1, t=t1, and then it
> > passes through x=x2, t=t2, and so on, up to x=12, t=12.915. In terms of these
> > coordinates, the difference between the spatial coordinates x1 and x2 is x2 - x1,
> > and the difference between the temporal coordinates t1 and t2 is t2 - t1.
> >
> > If you deny that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2 - t1, what do you think
> > the difference between those two numbers is? For example, if t1 = 5 and t2 = 9, I
> > say that the difference between t1 and t2 is 9-5 = 4. What do you think is the
> > difference between 9 and 5?
>
> You ask if x=5ly?

No, I ask if t1=5 and t2=9, what is the difference between t1 and t2?

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 7:22:20 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 22/10/2022 à 00:49, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> > Remember, x and t are coordinates, corresponding to the readings on a grid of
> > standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame.
> > The rocket begins at x=0, t=0, and then it passes through x=x1, t=t1, and then it
> > passes through x=x2, t=t2, and so on, up to x=12, t=12.915. In terms of these
> > coordinates, the difference between the spatial coordinates x1 and x2 is x2 - x1,
> > and the difference between the temporal coordinates t1 and t2 is t2 - t1.
> >
> > If you deny that the difference between t1 and t2 is t2 - t1, what do you think
> > the difference between those two numbers is? For example, if t1 = 5 and t2 = 9, I
> > say that the difference between t1 and t2 is 9-5 = 4. What do you think is the
> > difference between 9 and 5?

> You ask if x=5ly?

No. Can't you read? He asked:

" What do you think is the difference between 9 and 5? " ?