<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=a3NvNLXFkRzgazFfoEIkeNkVU7U@jntp>

The way physicists proceed to calculate the instantaneous speed of a
uniformly accelerated moving object is not correct.

It comes from their erroneous belief that the relativistic velocities
measured in the universe are the proper velocities of things.

The velocities being only observable (therefore deformable by the spatial
anisochrony and the dyschronotropy of the reference frames) one cannot add
or subtract core values ​​and turnip values.

The error in concept that they make then forces them to consider values
​​of expected observable velocities that are much too high, which
together with the error that they make on the proper times is not very
brilliant.

I give here the simple equation to use.

As for the simple subtraction (as Stan Fultoni does) of observable time
values ​​in this specific case, it must be abandoned.

It's a huge blunder that I think will go down in human history, and that
won't be corrected until long after I'm gone.

Because I know that I would have all the trouble in the world to make
myself understood.

And yet, as in my positions on the covariant spatial zoom effect,
it's hugely geometric and mathematically obvious if you understand what
I'm doing.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?a3NvNLXFkRzgazFfoEIkeNkVU7U@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas.
Il n'y a pas que de la violence avec des armes : il y a des situations de
violence."
Abbé Pierre
₀₀₀
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=a3NvNLXFkRzgazFfoEIkeNkVU7U@jntp>

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:23:06 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=a3NvNLXFkRzgazFfoEIkeNkVU7U@jntp>
>
> The way physicists proceed to calculate the instantaneous speed of a
> uniformly accelerated moving object is not correct.
>
> It comes from their erroneous belief that the relativistic velocities
> measured in the universe are the proper velocities of things.
>
> The velocities being only observable (therefore deformable by the spatial
> anisochrony and the dyschronotropy of the reference frames) one cannot add
> or subtract core values ​​and turnip values.
>
> The error in concept that they make then forces them to consider values
> ​​of expected observable velocities that are much too high, which
> together with the error that they make on the proper times is not very
> brilliant.

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

Den 07.11.2022 01:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=a3NvNLXFkRzgazFfoEIkeNkVU7U@jntp>
>
> The way physicists proceed to calculate the instantaneous speed of a
> uniformly accelerated moving object is not correct.
>
> It comes from their erroneous belief that the relativistic velocities
> measured in the universe are the proper velocities of things.
>
> The velocities being only observable (therefore deformable by the
> spatial anisochrony and the dyschronotropy of the reference frames) one
> cannot add or subtract core values ​​and turnip values.
>
> The error in concept that they make then forces them to consider values
> ​​of expected observable velocities that are much too high, which
> together with the error that they make on the proper times is not very
> brilliant.
>
> I give here the simple equation to use.
>
> As for the simple subtraction (as Stan Fultoni does) of observable time
> values ​​in this specific case, it must be abandoned.

|> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 4:38:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
|>>
|>> At x1=3 and x2=3.1 I have : t1=3.834504 and t2=3.937453
|>> So when you do the subtraction between t2 and t1 you find Δt=0.102949
|>> Your subtraction is incorrect, in the sense that, for example,
0.8c-0.5c
|>> is not 0.3c but 0.5c.

>
> It's a huge blunder that I think will go down in human history, and that
> won't be corrected until long after I'm gone.

Don't worry.
Your huge blunder that 3.937453-3.834504 ≠ 0.102949 has amused
a few people in this forum, but it will soon be forgotten.

Same with this blunder:

|> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 4:38:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
|>> For the trajectory t=sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a) we have dx/dt =
[1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)
Your attempt to revolutionize calculus as well as arithmetic
is amusing, but it will hardly go down in human history.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/