On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 3:41:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/10/2022 à 00:28, JanPB a écrit :
> > On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 3:04:43 PM UTC-7, Marc Busoni (abbé) wrote:
> >> Le 24/10/2022 à 23:43, JanPB a écrit :
> >> > OK, so this means you are negating Newton's mechanics and his method of
> >> > infinitesimal and integral calculus. (Because Newton uses the same approach
> >> > to deal with accelerated (curvilinear) motion.)
> >> The problem is not, I repeat it again, a problem of mathematics.
> >>
> >> But a problem of physics and geometry to be applied by the researcher.
> >
> > That's what I've just said: Newton applied a certain principle which you
> > are now negating.
> >
> >> His calculation is going to be excellent.
> >>
> >> But inappropriate.
> >
> > Again, this means you claim Newton's calculations were also inappropriate.
> > You are here unwinding the entire science of physics.
> >
> >> We work on relativistic times and distances.
> >>
> >> We have to be careful what we include.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> >> If we integrate false concepts, the results will be false.
> >
> > Again, Newton. You seem to think there is something completely new going
> > on in this analysis from a relativistic viewpoint. In fact, it's an old
> > Newtonian
> > principle: curvilinear dynamics is the limit of the piecewise-linear one.
> > This is actually an ancient principle: even long before Newton people calculated
> > curve lengths by partitioning them into straight segments of size made as small
> > as
> > deemed acceptable as far as the error can be made as small as desired.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> You don't understand what I'm saying.
>
> I'm not saying Leibniz's math is wrong (God forbid).
>
> I say that physicists use a wrong formula to go from Tr to To (or vice
> versa).
>
> THEN they do an integration as Leibniz would have done, using correct
> mathematics.
>
> BUT the data entered is WRONG!!!

You are saying that the proper time obtained by integrating
proper times of momentarily co-moving inertial observers is
"incorrect input". This is negating the entirety of everything
in physics beginning with Newton. It's not anything specific
to relativity.

You also seem to think proper times are obsrever-dependent.
Is this true?

--
Jan

On Tuesday, 25 October 2022 at 05:11:00 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 3:41:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 25/10/2022 à 00:28, JanPB a écrit :
> > > On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 3:04:43 PM UTC-7, Marc Busoni (abbé) wrote:
> > >> Le 24/10/2022 à 23:43, JanPB a écrit :
> > >> > OK, so this means you are negating Newton's mechanics and his method of
> > >> > infinitesimal and integral calculus. (Because Newton uses the same approach
> > >> > to deal with accelerated (curvilinear) motion.)
> > >> The problem is not, I repeat it again, a problem of mathematics.
> > >>
> > >> But a problem of physics and geometry to be applied by the researcher.
> > >
> > > That's what I've just said: Newton applied a certain principle which you
> > > are now negating.
> > >
> > >> His calculation is going to be excellent.
> > >>
> > >> But inappropriate.
> > >
> > > Again, this means you claim Newton's calculations were also inappropriate.
> > > You are here unwinding the entire science of physics.
> > >
> > >> We work on relativistic times and distances.
> > >>
> > >> We have to be careful what we include.
> > >
> > > Sure.
> > >
> > >> If we integrate false concepts, the results will be false.
> > >
> > > Again, Newton. You seem to think there is something completely new going
> > > on in this analysis from a relativistic viewpoint. In fact, it's an old
> > > Newtonian
> > > principle: curvilinear dynamics is the limit of the piecewise-linear one.
> > > This is actually an ancient principle: even long before Newton people calculated
> > > curve lengths by partitioning them into straight segments of size made as small
> > > as
> > > deemed acceptable as far as the error can be made as small as desired..
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > You don't understand what I'm saying.
> >
> > I'm not saying Leibniz's math is wrong (God forbid).
> >
> > I say that physicists use a wrong formula to go from Tr to To (or vice
> > versa).
> >
> > THEN they do an integration as Leibniz would have done, using correct
> > mathematics.
> >
> > BUT the data entered is WRONG!!!
> You are saying that the proper time obtained by integrating
> proper times of momentarily co-moving inertial observers is
> "incorrect input". This is negating the entirety of everything
> in physics beginning with Newton.

No, you're fabricating, as expected from a fanatic idiot.
But supposing it is - so what? Does your moronic physics
have any problem with negating Newton?

Le 25/10/2022 à 05:10, JanPB a écrit :
> You are saying that the proper time obtained by integrating
> proper times of momentarily co-moving inertial observers is
> "incorrect input". This is negating the entirety of everything
> in physics beginning with Newton. It's not anything specific
> to relativity.
>
> You also seem to think proper times are obsrever-dependent.
> Is this true?
>
> --
> Jan

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I am not saying that Leibniz's method of integration is wrong.

We have to stop making people look crazy in order to have a hold.

I say that the data we enter is bad, because based on the false principle
that Tr=To.sqrt(1-v²/c²) in accelerated repositories.

That's wrong.

It's as if you were composing a superb piece of software to calculate the
height averages of students in a school.

Then you enter all the data, and you find 3.139 instead of 4.776 in
reality.

Then you notice that the measuring clerk is using a very defective tape
measure to record the data.

Thus, it is not your software which is in question, but the entered data.

Well there, it's the same Leibniz and his integral calculus are obviously
not in question.

I never said that.

Or even thought, for that matter (that would be stupid of me).

R.H.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 3:19:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> I say that the data we enter is bad, because based on the false principle....

Whether physics is Lorentz invariant is ultimately a question to be decided empirically, but in order for a theory to even be evaluated empirically it must at least be logically coherent and self-consistent. Lorentz invariance (special relativity) is manifestly logically self-consistent, whereas your alternative beliefs are logically inconsistent and self-contradictory, implying 1=0.

This can easily be proven, i.e., we can prove that your beliefs are self-contradictory, and we can prove that special relativity is logically self-consistent. No experiments are required to prove these two facts, because they are purely questions of logic.

Your difficulty is that you refuse to honestly engage in a rational discussion. For example, to show you that your beliefs are self-contradictory, I begin by making statements such as "the difference between a and b is a-b", and I ask if you agree, and you do not agree. So then we have to spend several messages forcing you to admit this. Then we go to the next statement, such as "the ratio of a and b is a/b", and I ask if you agree, and you do not agree. Then we have to spend several messages forcing you to admit this. And so it goes, until you run away.

If you would just be honest for 1 hour, you would learn that your beliefs are self-contradictory. Then we could go on to show you that Lorentz invariance is logically self-consistent. And then, if you were still interested, we could go on to explain the empirical status of Lorentz invariance.

Do you want to understand why every rational person says your beliefs are self-contradictory? To prove this, we do not invoke Lorentz invariance at all, we simply use *your* equations. Interested? Or will you run away?

Le 25/10/2022 à 15:49, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> Or will you run away?

J'aime votre facilité à plaisanter.

R.H.

On 10/24/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

[variables de-confused]
> Le 25/10/2022 à 00:28, JanPB a écrit :
>> On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 3:04:43 PM UTC-7, Marc Busoni (abbé)
>> wrote:

>>> If we integrate false concepts, the results will be false.
>>
>> Again, Newton. You seem to think there is something completely new going
>> on in this analysis from a relativistic viewpoint. In fact, it's an
>> old Newtonian
>> principle: curvilinear dynamics is the limit of the piecewise-linear one.
>> This is actually an ancient principle: even long before Newton people
>> calculated
>> curve lengths by partitioning them into straight segments of size made
>> as small as
>> deemed acceptable as far as the error can be made as small as desired.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> You don't understand what I'm saying.
>
> I'm not saying Leibniz's math is wrong (God forbid).
>
> I say that physicists use a wrong formula to go from tau to t (or vice
> versa).
>
> THEN they do an integration as Leibniz would have done, using correct
> mathematics.
>
> BUT the data entered is WRONG!!!
>
> Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
>
> Δtau=Δt.sqrt(1-v²/c²) is false in TOTALITY in accelerated frames.

But earlier you agreed that if the segments were small enough, the
acceleration could be ignored over the tiny period of the segment, Δt.
Therefore, you calculate Δtau for each of the tiny nonaccelerated Δt
segments and get a lot of tiny Δtau segments, you add them all up and
get tau, the proper time of the accelerating astronaut, within some
margin of error. (error too large? Just use smaller segments)

As Jan stated, Newtonian curvilinear dynamics.

Maybe you need to think of each tiny segment as being inertial velocity
but at the end of each tiny segment n, there is a tiny acceleration over
zero time to get the velocity of the segment n+1. Being of zero time,
this does not contribute to Δt or Δtau. And because the segments are so
tiny, the change of velocity (acceleration) is also tiny and it doesn't
contribute to the error.

Of course, as you make the tiny segments smaller and smaller, there are
more and more of them, the differences in velocity between the segments
gets smaller and smaller, and the approximation becomes more and more
accurate. At the limit of an infinite number of infinitesimal sized
segments dt, you have ordinary integration.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 3:19:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/10/2022 à 05:10, JanPB a écrit :
> > You are saying that the proper time obtained by integrating
> > proper times of momentarily co-moving inertial observers is
> > "incorrect input". This is negating the entirety of everything
> > in physics beginning with Newton. It's not anything specific
> > to relativity.
> >
> > You also seem to think proper times are obsrever-dependent.
> > Is this true?
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> No, that's not what I'm saying.
>
> I am not saying that Leibniz's method of integration is wrong.
>
> We have to stop making people look crazy in order to have a hold.
>
> I say that the data we enter is bad, because based on the false principle
> that Tr=To.sqrt(1-v²/c²) in accelerated repositories.
>
> That's wrong.

You are not explaining why. You said earlier than an accelerated observer
could not use the same elapsed proper time as a momentarily inertailly co-moving
observer. Inother words, that curvilinear motion cannot be treated as a limit of
piecewise linear ones. How is this NOT contradicting Newton?

OTOH if you say that an accelerated observer CAN use the same elapsed proper
time as a momentarily inertailly co-moving observer, then the argument is over,
and Stan is correct.

What OTHER possibilities are there besides "X" and "not-X"?

You keep saying that "input is wrong" but never explain it other than how
I described it.

--
Jan

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 3:41:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/10/2022 à 00:28, JanPB a écrit :
> > On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 3:04:43 PM UTC-7, Marc Busoni (abbé) wrote:
> >> Le 24/10/2022 à 23:43, JanPB a écrit :
> >> > OK, so this means you are negating Newton's mechanics and his method of
> >> > infinitesimal and integral calculus. (Because Newton uses the same approach
> >> > to deal with accelerated (curvilinear) motion.)
> >> The problem is not, I repeat it again, a problem of mathematics.
> >>
> >> But a problem of physics and geometry to be applied by the researcher.
> >
> > That's what I've just said: Newton applied a certain principle which you
> > are now negating.
> >
> >> His calculation is going to be excellent.
> >>
> >> But inappropriate.
> >
> > Again, this means you claim Newton's calculations were also inappropriate.
> > You are here unwinding the entire science of physics.
> >
> >> We work on relativistic times and distances.
> >>
> >> We have to be careful what we include.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> >> If we integrate false concepts, the results will be false.
> >
> > Again, Newton. You seem to think there is something completely new going
> > on in this analysis from a relativistic viewpoint. In fact, it's an old
> > Newtonian
> > principle: curvilinear dynamics is the limit of the piecewise-linear one.
> > This is actually an ancient principle: even long before Newton people calculated
> > curve lengths by partitioning them into straight segments of size made as small
> > as
> > deemed acceptable as far as the error can be made as small as desired.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> You don't understand what I'm saying.
>
> I'm not saying Leibniz's math is wrong (God forbid).
>
> I say that physicists use a wrong formula to go from Tr to To (or vice
> versa).

But that formula is simply the formula for the arc length of a curve. It
has nothing to do with relativity per se. Saying it's wrong amounts to
negating the entire method of integral calculus.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 6:58:48 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Or will you run away?
>
> J'aime votre facilité à plaisanter.

As always, when confronted with the truth, you cover your ears and run away..

> I say that the data we enter is bad, because based on the false principle....

Whether physics is or isn't Lorentz invariant is ultimately a question to be decided empirically, but in order for a theory to even be evaluated empirically it must at least be logically coherent and self-consistent. Lorentz invariance (special relativity) is manifestly logically self-consistent, whereas your alternative beliefs are logically inconsistent and self-contradictory, implying 1=0, as explained in detail above.

In summary, your beliefs have been thoroughly debunked, shown to imply 1=0, and you run away.

Le 25/10/2022 à 20:00, JanPB a écrit :
> You are not explaining why. You said earlier than an accelerated observer
> could not use the same elapsed proper time as a momentarily inertailly co-moving
> observer. Inother words, that curvilinear motion cannot be treated as a limit of
> piecewise linear ones. How is this NOT contradicting Newton?

It is exactly that.

You understood me perfectly.

It seems that a relativistic accelerated movement cannot be considered
locally, as a series of small Galilean movements and that if we integrate
this, the response found is different from what is the reality.

No, no, that contradicts neither Newton, nor Leibniz, nor Poincaré.

Never.

Simply, physicists know today that if we sometimes go very quickly, things
take on unexpected aspects if we do not know the theory of the relativity
of time and space.

For example, you know the Lorentz transformations, and you know that what
is in a certain place and under a certain angle, is no longer placed in
the same place in another frame of reference.
I hope you were able to save my image file on this.

You also know that the velocities are no longer added in a Newtonian way
but that you have to use the complete aformula that I gave in a recent
post.

Well there it is the same.
If the physicist takes the currently accepted formula, believing that we
can integrate carrots and turnips together, ie by using things coming from
bad formulas or badly applied formulas, he will make colossal errors.

Stan Fultoni specifies that the proper time to move to Tau Ceti (12ly) at
an accelerated speed of 10m/s² will be 3.319 years.
The prediction error is colossal, since it is 4.776 years.

It is not his integration of Leibniz which is in question, but the fact
that he uses the formula reserved for Galilean uniform motion and not for
accelerated motion.

R.H.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 2:41:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/10/2022 à 20:00, JanPB a écrit :
> > You are not explaining why. You said earlier than an accelerated observer
> > could not use the same elapsed proper time as a momentarily inertailly co-moving
> > observer. Inother words, that curvilinear motion cannot be treated as a limit of
> > piecewise linear ones. How is this NOT contradicting Newton?
> It is exactly that.
>
> You understood me perfectly.
>
> It seems that a relativistic accelerated movement cannot be considered
> locally, as a series of small Galilean movements

They are not Galilean, they are relativistic.

> and that if we integrate
> this, the response found is different from what is the reality.
>
> No, no, that contradicts neither Newton, nor Leibniz, nor Poincaré.

But it does! In relativity proper time is arc length. And arc length
is the limit of sums of piecewise-linear segment lengths. This
even _predates_ the calculus of Newton and Leibniz. (What their
calculus accomplished was a different, vastly more efficient,
method of calculating such limits of sums of segments.)

> Simply, physicists know today that if we sometimes go very quickly, things
> take on unexpected aspects if we do not know the theory of the relativity
> of time and space.
>
> For example, you know the Lorentz transformations, and you know that what
> is in a certain place and under a certain angle, is no longer placed in
> the same place in another frame of reference.
> I hope you were able to save my image file on this.
>
> You also know that the velocities are no longer added in a Newtonian way
> but that you have to use the complete aformula that I gave in a recent
> post.
>
> Well there it is the same.
> If the physicist takes the currently accepted formula, believing that we
> can integrate carrots and turnips together,

Weare not doing that. We are simply calculating the length of a trajectory..
It's equal to the limit of sum of certain rectilinear segment lengths.

> ie by using things coming from
> bad formulas or badly applied formulas, he will make colossal errors.

The formulas are not bad, they are the standard Newton & Leibniz, GmbH.

> Stan Fultoni specifies that the proper time to move to Tau Ceti (12ly) at
> an accelerated speed of 10m/s² will be 3.319 years.
> The prediction error is colossal, since it is 4.776 years.

Stan is correct.

> It is not his integration of Leibniz which is in question, but the fact
> that he uses the formula reserved for Galilean uniform motion and not for
> accelerated motion.

It's not Galilean, it's relativistic. Inertial relativistic. Not inertial Galilean.

--
Jan