Den 14.03.2024 17:03, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 14/03/2024 à 15:02, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> The subject line is:
>> "SR: Usefulness of real velocities in accelerated relativistic frames
>> of reference."
>>
>> I take this to mean that you are stating what you claim SR predicts.
>>
>>>
>>> Above all, we must prioritize experimentation.
>>> And if two theories face each other, we must take the one which has
>>> the approval of the experimenters.
>>
>> Indeed.
>> And you know of course that SR is confirmed by innumerable
>> experiments and falsified by none.
>> Some of them:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>>
>> But the issue is:
>> Does SR predict what you claim it predicts?
>
> Here is the problem:
> We now know that Newtonian physics is out of the running, and that we
> must use a relativistic theory.
> This is certain, and the evidence is so abundant that no one disputes it
> anymore, except a few crazy people.
> But here we have, face to face, two ways of seeing the SR.

There is not "Two ways of seeing SR".
SR is mathematical consistent and can't be made
to give contradicting answers to the same problem.

You can start with the metric:
(c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²
and everything follows from that.

The equations relating to our discussion are:

Rocket with constant proper acceleration a.

Entities measured in the inertial frame K(x,t):

Speed: Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
Average speed Vm(t) = c²⋅(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)-1)/a⋅t
Coordinate acceleration A = dVr/dt = a/(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²))³

It is not possible to make SR predict anything else!
====================================================

If you claim otherwise, start with the metric and
show the math that leads to the alternative equations
you think are right!

> I am the only one to propose a coherent theory, theoretically
> unassailable and flawless, and with all the experiments on my side
> (including the instantaneous longitudinal transmission of information
> and the impossibility of transverse transmissions greater than c).

If you have a theory which give different answers from SR,
then it will be experimentally falsified.

I am not interested in discussing yet another crackpot theory.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 14.03.2024 17:18, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 14/03/2024 à 15:02, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> A rocket is accelerating at the constant proper acceleration a.
>> An inertial frame of reference K(x,t) is at the time t = 0
>> instantly co-moving with the rocket.
>>
>> You claim:
>> According to SR the speed of the rocket in K is Vr(t) = a⋅t
>> ===========================================================
>>
>> Note that this means that Vr > c when t > c/a
>> which according to SR is impossible.
>>
>> A rocket is accelerating at the constant proper acceleration a.
>> An inertial frame of reference K(x,t) is at the time t = 0
>> instantly co-moving with the rocket.
>>
>> You claim:
>> According to SR the speed of the rocket in K is Vr(t) = a⋅t
>> ===========================================================
>>
>> Note that this means that Vr > c when t > c/a
>> which according to SR is impossible.
>>
>>
>> Contradicting fact:
>> -------------------
>> So this is wrong.
>> You can see the correct derivation here:
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>> See chapter 2.3, equation (15)
>>
>> Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>>
>> Note that:
>>   Vr → a⋅t when t → 0
>>   Vr → c   when t → ∞
>>
>>
>> Your problem is that you do not understand the difference
>> between proper acceleration of the rocket, and the rocket's
>> coordinate acceleration in the inertial frame.
>>
>> If A is the coordinate acceleration in K, we have:
>>
>> A = dVr/dt = a/(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²))³
>>
>> Note that:
>>   A → a when t → 0
>>   A → 0 when t → ∞
>>
>> So  Vr(t) = ∫(from 0 to t)A⋅dt = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>>
>> You claim:
>> According to SR is the average speed of the rocket Vm(t) = Vr(t)/2
>> =====================================================================
>>
>> Contradicting fact:
>> -------------------
>> This is wrong.
>>
>> Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>>
>> The average speed Vm at the time t is:
>> Vm = (integral from t=0 to t=t of Vr(t)dt)/t
>> Vm = c²⋅(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)-1)/a⋅t
>>
>> Note that:
>>   Vm → a⋅t/2 when t → 0
>>   Vm → c     when t → ∞
>>
>> So:
>>   Vm/Vr  → 1/2  when t → 0
>>   rm/Vr  → 1    when t → ∞
>>
>> So for any t > 0   Vm > Vr/2
>>
>> It is not possible to make SR predict anything else!
>> ====================================================
>
> You don't understand anything I'm telling you...

I do indeed understand that you telling me:
Vr(t) = a⋅t
and:
Vm(t) = Vr(t)/2

And I do indeed understand that what you are telling me is wrong.
And it is a very naive and elementary blunder!

>
> In these conditions, it is very difficult to discuss.

I do understand that you find it difficult to defend your own words.
So that's why you don't even try, right?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 15/03/2024 à 15:11, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> I am saying that SR does not predict that accelerated objects
> will behave as you claim they do.

We agree.
The SR does not predict things the way I predict them.
The problem, although enormous, is that experimentally I am credible and
not the SR which cannot explain instantaneous transfers of information,
and that theoretically I do not have the enormous concern of completely
inconsistent apparent speeds. if only in a simple Langevin paradox.

R.H.

Le 15/03/2024 à 15:11, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> I suppose you are referring to my "false" equations:
> Speed: Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
> Average speed Vm(t) = c²⋅(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)-1)/a⋅t
>
> where your "correct" equations are:
> Speed: Vr(t) = a⋅t
> Average speed Vm(t) = a⋅t/2
>
> :-D

The speed of the accelerated mobile or particle
is a function of time.
The more time passes, the greater the speed.
Everyone agrees on that.
Now we have to give the correct equation.
I wrote that the correct equation is:
Vo(Tr)=a.Tr/sqrt(1+(a.Tr)²/c²)
I don't see what your problem is.
Vr(Tr)=a.Tr
Vrm=Vri/2
What do you not understand?

R.H.

Le 15/03/2024 à 15:12, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> I do indeed understand that you telling me:
> Vr(t) = a⋅t
> and:
> Vm(t) = Vr(t)/2
>
> And I do indeed understand that what you are telling me is wrong.
> And it is a very naive and elementary blunder!
>
>>
>> In these conditions, it is very difficult to discuss.
>
> I do understand that you find it difficult to defend your own words.
> So that's why you don't even try, right?
>
> Paul

No, you simply understand that what I say, on certain points, is different
from what the usual SR says.
You conclude, without any serious examination, that it is therefore false.
Your behavior is then not scientific, it is just based on a kind of
religiosity.

R.H.

W dniu 15.03.2024 o 15:13, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

> There is not "Two ways of seeing SR".
> SR is mathematical consistent and can't be made
> to give contradicting answers to the same problem.

No it is not, you've got a proof
and pretending you haven't noticed
won't change anything, poor trash.

W dniu 15.03.2024 o 15:39, Richard Hachel pisze:
> Le 15/03/2024 à 15:12, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> I do indeed understand that you telling me:
>>   Vr(t) = a⋅t
>> and:
>>   Vm(t) = Vr(t)/2
>>
>> And I do indeed understand that what you are telling me is wrong.
>> And it is a very naive and elementary blunder!
>>
>>>
>>> In these conditions, it is very difficult to discuss.
>>
>> I do understand that you find it difficult to defend your own words.
>> So that's why you don't even try, right?
>>
>> Paul
>
> No, you simply understand that what I say, on certain points, is
> different from what the usual SR says.
> You conclude, without any serious examination, that it is therefore false.
> Your behavior is then not scientific, it is just based on akind of
> religiosity.

Of course; why wouldn't behaviour of
a fanatic religious maniac be based
on a kind of religiosity?

Le 15/03/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 15.03.2024 o 15:39, Richard Hachel pisze:
>> Le 15/03/2024 à 15:12, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>> I do indeed understand that you telling me:
>>>   Vr(t) = a⋅t
>>> and:
>>>   Vm(t) = Vr(t)/2
>>>
>>> And I do indeed understand that what you are telling me is wrong.
>>> And it is a very naive and elementary blunder!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In these conditions, it is very difficult to discuss.
>>>
>>> I do understand that you find it difficult to defend your own words.
>>> So that's why you don't even try, right?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> No, you simply understand that what I say, on certain points, is
>> different from what the usual SR says.
>> You conclude, without any serious examination, that it is therefore false.
>> Your behavior is then not scientific, it is just based on akind of
>> religiosity.
>
>
> Of course; why wouldn't behaviour of
> a fanatic religious maniac be based
> on a kind of religiosity?

The theory of relativity has two important enemies.
Those who believe in it too much and make it their religion without even
understanding the basics, and those who don't believe in it at all.
A guitar string must be tensioned correctly. If you don't tighten it
enough, it makes a deep and unpleasant sound. If you stretch it too much,
it will break.

R.H.

On 3/15/2024 10:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 15/03/2024 à 15:11, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> I suppose you are referring to my "false" equations:
>> Speed:            Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>> Average speed     Vm(t) = c²⋅(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)-1)/a⋅t
>>
>> where your "correct" equations are:
>> Speed:  Vr(t) = a⋅t
>> Average speed  Vm(t) = a⋅t/2
>>
>> :-D
>
> The speed of the accelerated mobile or particle
> is a function of time.
> The more time passes, the greater the speed.
> Everyone agrees on that.
> Now we have to give the correct equation.
> I wrote that the correct equation is:
> Vo(Tr)=a.Tr/sqrt(1+(a.Tr)²/c²)
> I don't see what your problem is.
> Vr(Tr)=a.Tr
> Vrm=Vri/2
> What do you not understand?
>
You don't explain or even acknowledge the problem with what happens when
Tr > c/a. Besides, your statement Vr(Tr)=a*Tr is Newtonian/Galilean
physics, not SR.

On 03/15/2024 10:45 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 3/15/2024 10:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 15/03/2024 à 15:11, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>> I suppose you are referring to my "false" equations:
>>> Speed: Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>>> Average speed Vm(t) = c²⋅(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)-1)/a⋅t
>>>
>>> where your "correct" equations are:
>>> Speed: Vr(t) = a⋅t
>>> Average speed Vm(t) = a⋅t/2
>>>
>>> :-D
>>
>> The speed of the accelerated mobile or particle
>> is a function of time.
>> The more time passes, the greater the speed.
>> Everyone agrees on that.
>> Now we have to give the correct equation.
>> I wrote that the correct equation is:
>> Vo(Tr)=a.Tr/sqrt(1+(a.Tr)²/c²)
>> I don't see what your problem is.
>> Vr(Tr)=a.Tr
>> Vrm=Vri/2
>> What do you not understand?
>>
> You don't explain or even acknowledge the problem with what happens when
> Tr > c/a. Besides, your statement Vr(Tr)=a*Tr is Newtonian/Galilean
> physics, not SR.

dp/dt_p

dv/dt_v

da/dt_a

Notice what is going on there with the idea that the moments
the higher moments, of the infinitely-many higher orders of
acceleration, reflect for time t which is overall the only
continuous parameter, that the higher order terms, get
"fuller differentials", vis-a-vis the usual notion of
the differential and the partial differential, just
introduces a notation, what reflects that the lower
orders, accumulate from all the higher orders, while,
"classically", the impulse, is at some finite order
constant, and all its higher orders zero.

Any _change_ gets into the entire difference,
any _exchange_, about the arbitrarily high order,
and even the infinitely high order, what comes
down from the "theory of sum potentials" to
advise the instantaneous moments everywhere
input to "theory of sum histories", that this
is exactly the kind of thing that otherwise
is relativistic dynamics under mass/energy equivalency,
"e = mc^2", that very similarly, the term "mc^2"
is only the first term in the Taylor series
expansion, and about its dimensional analysis
and units, too.

The idea that f = ma is classical and great,
about inverse square both ways and that
"the classical is in a sense dimensionless",
here there is that for sum-of-histories and
path integral, parallel transport in the space,
there's "theory of sum histories", and that
"the real" in the fields is "theory of sum potentials",
that it results that "the classical theory is just
a singularity in the super-classical theory".

This is so in its own terms, of course, then
for figuring out how to reflect sort of on
this "fuller derivative", that it gets involved
basically the "differ-integro" and "integro-differ",
then also for example classical extensions about
the "stop-derivative", and implicits and so on,
and usual sorts of approaches to the non-linear,
in a world where the geodesy is world-orbits potentially
vis-a-vis world-lines classically, that the world-line
is just the sum of those, and getting into a real
way to better reflect the theory, the sum.

Le 15/03/2024 à 15:13, Paul B. Andersen a écrit :
> Den 14.03.2024 17:18, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 14/03/2024 à 15:02, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>> A rocket is accelerating at the constant proper acceleration a.
>>> An inertial frame of reference K(x,t) is at the time t = 0
>>> instantly co-moving with the rocket.
>>>
>>> You claim:
>>> According to SR the speed of the rocket in K is Vr(t) = a⋅t
>>> ===========================================================
>>>
>>> Note that this means that Vr > c when t > c/a
>>> which according to SR is impossible.
>>>
>>> A rocket is accelerating at the constant proper acceleration a.
>>> An inertial frame of reference K(x,t) is at the time t = 0
>>> instantly co-moving with the rocket.
>>>
>>> You claim:
>>> According to SR the speed of the rocket in K is Vr(t) = a⋅t
>>> ===========================================================
>>>
>>> Note that this means that Vr > c when t > c/a
>>> which according to SR is impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Contradicting fact:
>>> -------------------
>>> So this is wrong.
>>> You can see the correct derivation here:
>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>>> See chapter 2.3, equation (15)
>>>
>>> Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>>>
>>> Note that:
>>>   Vr → a⋅t when t → 0
>>>   Vr → c   when t → ∞
>>>
>>>
>>> Your problem is that you do not understand the difference
>>> between proper acceleration of the rocket, and the rocket's
>>> coordinate acceleration in the inertial frame.
>>>
>>> If A is the coordinate acceleration in K, we have:
>>>
>>> A = dVr/dt = a/(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²))³
>>>
>>> Note that:
>>>   A → a when t → 0
>>>   A → 0 when t → ∞
>>>
>>> So  Vr(t) = ∫(from 0 to t)A⋅dt = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>>>
>>> You claim:
>>> According to SR is the average speed of the rocket Vm(t) = Vr(t)/2
>>> =====================================================================
>>>
>>> Contradicting fact:
>>> -------------------
>>> This is wrong.
>>>
>>> Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>>>
>>> The average speed Vm at the time t is:
>>> Vm = (integral from t=0 to t=t of Vr(t)dt)/t
>>> Vm = c²⋅(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)-1)/a⋅t
>>>
>>> Note that:
>>>   Vm → a⋅t/2 when t → 0
>>>   Vm → c     when t → ∞
>>>
>>> So:
>>>   Vm/Vr  → 1/2  when t → 0
>>>   rm/Vr  → 1    when t → ∞
>>>
>>> So for any t > 0   Vm > Vr/2
>>>
>>> It is not possible to make SR predict anything else!
>>> ====================================================
>>
>> You don't understand anything I'm telling you...
>
> I do indeed understand that you telling me:
>  Vr(t) = a⋅t
> and:
>  Vm(t) = Vr(t)/2
>
> And I do indeed understand that what you are telling me is wrong.
> And it is a very naive and elementary blunder!
>
>>
>> In these conditions, it is very difficult to discuss.
>
> I do understand that you find it difficult to defend your own words.
> So that's why you don't even try, right?

As he did on fr.sci.physique for decades.

Le 15/03/2024 à 18:46, Volney a écrit :
> On 3/15/2024 10:30 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 15/03/2024 à 15:11, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>> I suppose you are referring to my "false" equations:
>>> Speed:            Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>>> Average speed     Vm(t) = c²⋅(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)-1)/a⋅t
>>>
>>> where your "correct" equations are:
>>> Speed:  Vr(t) = a⋅t
>>> Average speed  Vm(t) = a⋅t/2
>>>
>>> :-D
>>
>> The speed of the accelerated mobile or particle
>> is a function of time.
>> The more time passes, the greater the speed.
>> Everyone agrees on that.
>> Now we have to give the correct equation.
>> I wrote that the correct equation is:
>> Vo(Tr)=a.Tr/sqrt(1+(a.Tr)²/c²)
>> I don't see what your problem is.
>> Vr(Tr)=a.Tr
>> Vrm=Vri/2
>> What do you not understand?
>>
> You don't explain or even acknowledge the problem with what happens when
> Tr > c/a. Besides, your statement Vr(Tr)=a*Tr is Newtonian/Galilean
> physics, not SR.

You are absolutely right :
when I say Vr(Tr)=a.Tr, it IS Newtonian relativity.
However, the equation is correct.
Warning! Tr is a proper time, and not a observable time.
We must therefore inhale and breathe, that is to say : try to understand.
It is the same when I say: "There will therefore exist an impassable speed
which will extend to all the particles and all the properties of physics"
which is RR, and which I say, at the same time "This horse in this meadow,
this moon in the sky, this galaxy in this telescope, I see them live,
instantly, absolutely indicative of themselves. The emission of the photon
and its reception by my retina occur in the same instant", which is
quantum theory.
We will say: it is absurd and contradictory.
Absolutely not, all this is of prodigious theoretical beauty, mathematical
simplicity and manifest experimental evidence (Alain Aspect).
The only problem is just the neurons of those who read me,
formatted with an incorrect vision of the world, and that was imposed on
them from a very young age.

R.H.

Den 15.03.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 15/03/2024 à 15:11, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> I suppose you are referring to my "false" equations:
>> Speed:            Vr(t) = a⋅t/√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)
>> Average speed     Vm(t) = c²⋅(√(1+(a⋅t/c)²)-1)/a⋅t
>>
>> where your "correct" equations are:
>> Speed:  Vr(t) = a⋅t
>> Average speed  Vm(t) = a⋅t/2
>>
>> :-D
>
> The speed of the accelerated mobile or particle
> is a function of time.
> The more time passes, the greater the speed.
> Everyone agrees on that

Indeed! Vr increases with time.

Den 12.03.2024, skrev Richard Hachel:
| In the rocket frame, a is constant. Always.
| The rocket is at rest in its frame of reference,
| and the speed Vr of the surrounding space becomes Vr=a.Tr
| There is no problem, the speed of the rocket, that is to
| say the real speed of movement of the terrestrial frame
| of reference, is indeed Vr.

This means that Vr is the relative speed between the rocket
and the terrestrial frame. Since the terrestrial frame is
inertial while the rocket is accelerating this means that
Vr is the speed of rocket in the inertial terrestrial frame.

So there is no problem: Vr = a.Tr
where a is the proper acceleration of the rocket
and Vr is the speed of the rocket in the inertial frame.

Den 16.03.2024 skrev Richard Hachel:
| When I say Vr(Tr)=a.Tr, it IS Newtonian relativity.
| However, the equation is correct.
| Warning! Tr is a proper time.

OK.
This is Newtonian (Galilean) relativity.
Tr is the proper time of the rocket and the time coordinate
in the inertial (terrestrial) frame.

There is no limit for the speed of the rocket.

We can conclude:
================
Richard Hachel's equations:
Speed of rocket in inertial frame: Vr=a.Tr
Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr

Are correct only in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity.

So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 15.03.2024 15:20, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 15/03/2024 à 15:11, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> I am saying that SR does not predict that accelerated objects
>> will behave as you claim they do.
>
> We agree.
> The SR does not predict things the way I predict them.

Right. You predict them like Newton did.

Richard Hachel's equations:
Speed of rocket in inertial frame: Vr=a.Tr
Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr

Are correct only in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity.

So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.

> The problem, although enormous, is that experimentally I am credible and
> not the SR which cannot explain instantaneous transfers of information.

Why should SR "explain" what doesn't exist?

You know of course that SR is thoroughly experimentally verified
and never falsified, while NM is falsified.

> and that theoretically I do not have the enormous concern of completely
> inconsistent apparent speeds. if only in a simple Langevin paradox.

Are there "inconsistent apparent speeds" in the "twin paradox"? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 15.03.2024 15:39, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 15/03/2024 à 15:12, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> I do indeed understand that you telling me:
>>   Vr(t) = a⋅t
>> and:
>>   Vm(t) = Vr(t)/2
>>
>> And I do indeed understand that what you are telling me is wrong.
>> And it is a very naive and elementary blunder!
>>
>
> No, you simply understand that what I say, on certain points, is
> different from what the usual SR says.

Quite.
You are telling we what Newtonian Mechanics say,
which has nothing to do with SR.

> You conclude, without any serious examination, that it is therefore false.

Yes, sorry. I thought you were talking about SR, but I was wrong.

Richard Hachel's equations:
Speed of rocket in inertial frame: Vr=a.Tr
Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr

Are correct only in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity.

So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.

But why is "[SR]" in the subject line when you only
are talking about Newtonian Mechanics?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 16/03/2024 à 14:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> Richard Hachel's equations:
> Speed of rocket in inertial frame: Vr=a.Tr
> Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr
>
> Are correct only in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity.
>
> So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.
>
> Paul

The greatness of a man is taking serious things seriously.

There you are joking.

That's not what I expect from a man like you.

R.H.

Le 16/03/2024 à 14:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 15.03.2024 15:20, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 15/03/2024 à 15:11, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>> I am saying that SR does not predict that accelerated objects
>>> will behave as you claim they do.
>>
>> We agree.
>> The SR does not predict things the way I predict them.
>
> Right. You predict them like Newton did.
>
> Richard Hachel's equations:
> Speed of rocket in inertial frame: Vr=a.Tr
> Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr
>
> Are correct only in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity.
>
> So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.

Absolutely not.
>
>
>> The problem, although enormous, is that experimentally I am credible and
>> not the SR which cannot explain instantaneous transfers of information.
>
> Why should SR "explain" what doesn't exist?
>
> You know of course that SR is thoroughly experimentally verified
> and never falsified, while NM is falsified.
>
>> and that theoretically I do not have the enormous concern of completely
>> inconsistent apparent speeds. if only in a simple Langevin paradox.
>
> Are there "inconsistent apparent speeds" in the "twin paradox"? :-D

Je vous supplie de comprendre ce que je dis avant de juger.

Vous ne le faites pas.

Ce n'est pas à la hauteur d'un homme tel que vous, que je reconnais,
moi, pour un très bon posteur.

R.H.

Le 16/03/2024 à 14:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 15.03.2024 15:39, skrev Richard Hachel:

> So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.

Absolutely not.

Your comments are criminal.

When I write To=(x/c).sqrt(1+c²/ax) it is not SR.

When I give you the correct equations to apply for rotating frames of
reference, that is not SR.

When I describe a Langevin paradox to you, it is not SR.

All my equations relating to accelerated frames of reference are not SR.

Do not lie.

You don't get anything very scientific from lies.

Only lies.

Want to look like Python?

I don't recommend it.

You are worth, I am not kidding, much better than that.

R.H.

Le 16/03/2024 à 14:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 15.03.2024 15:39, skrev Richard Hachel:

> Richard Hachel's equations:
> Speed of rocket in inertial frame: Vr=a.Tr

Absolutely.

> Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr

Absolutely.

>
> Are correct only in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity.

Sure.

>
> So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.

Absolutely not.

Try again.

> But why is "[SR]" in the subject line when you only
> are talking about Newtonian Mechanics?

Vous plaisantez, monsieur.

C'est indigne de vous.

Je vous supplie de revenir à plus d'intelligence.

R.H.

W dniu 16.03.2024 o 14:20, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

> Why should SR "explain" what doesn't exist?

And why it does. Simple - because it was
created by an idiot mystician unable even
to mumble consistently.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 16/03/2024 à 14:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.
>
> Absolutely not. Your comments are criminal.

yes, for instance the Northstream 2 and 2 energy pipelines, blown up under
the sea. But you are not less criminal. Your entire fucking government is
criminal, with proofs.

> When I write To=(x/c).sqrt(1+c²/ax) it is not SR.

you have to make sure you undrestand the symbols first. You complain you
don't know what time is. And the wife of Macron is a man. An older man,
hence the Macrone must be the female part, taking dicks in his ass for
pleasure.

Micron's Wife Answers the Allegations
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/cmKDn21Xfwie

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> So there is no problem: Vr = a.Tr where a is the proper acceleration of
> the rocket and Vr is the speed of the rocket in the inertial frame.

not sure. But you have to read this paper, page 20:20, You guys from
amrica don't know how a nazi looks like, and 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗮_𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝗶𝘀. Amazing paper,
almost better than Parenti.

𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗧𝗧_𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥_-_𝗥𝗨𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗔𝗡_𝗗𝗘𝗠𝗢𝗖𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗬_𝗜𝗡_𝗪𝗔𝗥_𝗠𝗢𝗗𝗘_(𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗗_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_-_𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵)
https://bitchute.com/video/47dKxmM4UP5t

the bitch, in her favour, is naming Einstine, as he was not a nazi, lol.

Den 16.03.2024 15:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 16/03/2024 à 14:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 15.03.2024 15:39, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
>> So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.
>
> Absolutely not.

Since the equations:
Speed of rocket in inertial frame: Vr=a.Tr
Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr
are valid _only_ in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity,
then the theory which is consistent with said equations
is Newtonian Mechanics.

>
> Your comments are criminal.

A very lethal argument! :-D

>
> When I write To=(x/c).sqrt(1+c²/ax) it is not SR.

And it is not mathematical consistent with the equations:
Vr=a.Tr
Vrm=(1/2)Vr
so it is not Newtonian Mechanics.

But maybe you don't think that a theory of physics
has to be mathematically consistent?

>
> When I describe a Langevin paradox to you, it is not SR.

In 1911 Langevin discovered that SR predicted that
two twins could age differently after different journeys.
This is called the "Langevin paradox" or the "twin paradox".

And you say the "Langevin paradox" is NOT SR? :-D

I find it rather strange that it has been so many
strange attempts to "resolve" the "twin paradox",
because it follows straight forward from SR.

You can see SR's prediction for the "Langevin paradox" here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf

SR's prediction is experimentally verified.
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf
Two twins travelling in opposite directions
around the Earth will age differently.

>
> All my equations relating to accelerated frames of reference are not SR.

And they are NOT mathematical consistent with
your equations Vr=a.Tr and Vrm=(1/2)Vr so
they are not NM.

Your equations which are not consistent
with neither NM nor SR are nonsense.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 16.03.2024 15:29, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 16/03/2024 à 14:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 15.03.2024 15:39, skrev Richard Hachel:
>
>> Richard Hachel's equations:
>>   Speed of rocket in inertial frame:             Vr=a.Tr
>
> Absolutely.
>>   Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr
>
> Absolutely.
>
>>
>> Are correct only in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity.
>
> Sure.

So the coordinate transformation equations are:
x' = x - v⋅t
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t

Which IS Galilean relativity.

>
>>
>> So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.
>
> Absolutely not.

Don't be ridiculous.
An intelligent Doctor and scientist like you will obviously
understand that since the equations:
Speed of rocket in inertial frame: Vr=a.Tr
Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr
are valid _only_ in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity,
then the theory which is consistent with said equations
is Newtonian Mechanics.

Or don't you? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 16.03.2024 15:16, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 16/03/2024 à 14:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
>> Richard Hachel's equations:
>>   Speed of rocket in inertial frame:             Vr=a.Tr
>>   Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr
>>
>> Are correct only in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity.
>>
>> So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.
>>
>> Paul
>
> The greatness of a man is taking serious things seriously.
>
> There you are joking.
>
> That's not what I expect from a man like you.

Maybe this is what you expect?

Since the equations:
Speed of rocket in inertial frame: Vr=a.Tr
Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr
are valid _only_ in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity,
then the theory which is consistent with said equations
is _only_ Newtonian Mechanics.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/